Roland Martin vs. Dr. Umar Johnson
Options
Comments
-
How many light skin west african you seen that didn't have european blood in them?
Bruh, your whole post is full of half truths and untruths. Its fair to say that the spectrum of shades in African Americans is due to race mixing, but even Africans straight from Africa came in different shades with some being lighter and others being darker.
The San people and who else? that really it
99% or african people are originally brown to dark. You acting like it's tons of original lightskin people in africaColorism is not a product of race mixing. It's a product of people putting a premium on lighter skin. Euros brought dark brown Africans over here and medium brown Africans over here. You don't think they were treating the lighter Africans different from the start?
"You too black" "pretty light skin girl" "I'm pretty because I'm lightskin" etc didn't exist until race mixing and that a fact
-
semi-auto-mato wrote: »
I wasn't directing my post at anyone. I was just saying cuz it keeps being said. I was just throwing the example out there.
Are u talking about the Obama meme? Did I miss something?
Now u do know u lose points for googling it. If y'all gotta Google it u shouldn't be saying it.
Yeah that obama gif. I gave you the original definition to let you know what I was talking about
-
His message consists of psychoanalyzing "black boys".....
N/h...
I think educational attainment is applicable in this situation.....
No straw man...
? trying to skip that part tho.....
-
You would be hard press to find majority of black people down to fight white supremacy that will agree with interracial relationship.lol Frederick Douglas was every bit as involved in the fight against slavery as Harriet Tubman, but he married a white woman, so I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.
There are good or at least understandable reasons why some are against interracial marriage. However, a lot of the reasons given are dumb. They usually boil down to charging every white person with being responsible for white supremacy, which is silly. Every white person is a beneficiary of white privilege to some extent, but not every white person is out their promoting white supremacy. Most whites aren't even in a position to do that with any effectiveness. The fact is a lot of people that are on this site have anti-white feelings and they believe those feelings are good reason tell other blacks that they shouldn't marry whites. Those anti-white feelings are understandable, but they don't make for a good argument against interracial marriage in general.Fredrick Douglass was already explained now answer my first partThe Lonious Monk wrote: »
What explanation? That he was old? That he married a black woman first? Neither of those change the fact that he married a white woman.
And in this very video Roland Martin gave a laundry list of people who were instrumental in the fight against white supremacy. You dudes just like to dismiss them despite the fact that most of the people named struggled more in the name of black people than anyone on this site ever has and likely ever will. That's why this whole line of reasoning is bogus. There really has never been any era of struggle in the name of black rights where some of the people in that fight didn't end up marrying someone from the other side. ? happens.These guys are nothing but professional question Dodgers. All they want to do is straw mad and troll over the same issue that doesnt solves problems -
How many light skin west african you seen that didn't have european blood in them?
The San people and who else? that really it
99% or african people are originally brown to dark. You acting like it's tons of original lightskin people in Africa
lol I'm not acting like there are tons of original lightskin people in Africa. I'm rejecting you idea that "lightskinned" people are necessary for colorism to exist. It doesn't. All there needed to be is some black people that were lighter than other black people, and there would be a basis for whites treating some differently based on their skin tone. That's where colorism comes from and you can bet it was being put into practice before ? babies even became prominent in the Americas."You too black" "pretty light skin girl" "I'm pretty because I'm lightskin" etc didn't exist until race mixing and that a fact
What are you basing that on? You're just making ? up. Say you could rank skin tone from 1 to 10 with 1 being "light bright damn near white" and 10 being "black as night." Euros brought 10s over here and 7s over here. If Euros were letting 7s work in the house and making 10s work in the field, you don't think that caused dissension? You don't believe that led to color based identity problems? Again, as I've already pointed out. You see colorism in places like India and Southeast Asia where race mixing isn't even an issue.These guys are nothing but professional question Dodgers. All they want to do is straw mad and troll over the same issue that doesnt solves problems
How did I not answer your question? Is this the new tactic, to ask a question, ignore the answer, and then pretend like no on answered you?
Why is it that @Kwan Dai is the only one on your side of the argument that actually argues points consistently? The rest of you just play these silly dodging games. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
lol I'm not acting like there are tons of original lightskin people in Africa. I'm rejecting you idea that "lightskinned" people are necessary for colorism to exist. It doesn't. All there needed to be is some black people that were lighter than other black people, and there would be a basis for whites treating some differently based on their skin tone. That's where colorism comes from and you can bet it was being put into practice before ? babies even became prominent in the Americas.
Do you have any proof of this happening? If you have proof that brown and darker people have colorism issues in The BLACK COMMUNITY Let's see receipt.
Are you even black? What are you even talking about I'm making up those terms? Those are things that I personally witness in my life what people say and that is a result of colorismThe Lonious Monk wrote: »What are you basing that on? You're just making ? up. Say you could rank skin tone from 1 to 10 with 1 being "light bright damn near white" and 10 being "black as night." Euros brought 10s over here and 7s over here. If Euros were letting 7s work in the house and making 10s work in the field, you don't think that caused dissension? You don't believe that led to color based identity problems? Again, as I've already pointed out. You see colorism in places like India and Southeast Asia where race mixing isn't even an issue.
Who care about what goes on india ? That's not my problem.
And my Argument isn't about colorism in asia and india. It's about the BLACK COMMUNITY and how its a problem for us.
-
Example: This woman comes to the black state of the union and States we need to stop with colourism in our community and She also says I love my black family. Y'all don't see a problem with this????
UMMMMMMMM -
Do you have any proof of this happening? If you have proof that brown and darker people have colorism issues in The BLACK COMMUNITY Let's see receipt.
I'm not sure how you expect me to prove that to you, but have you heard of the "Brown Paper Bag" test? You can go to West Africa right now and find pure Africans with skin tones similar to that of a brown paper bag. Seriously, if you're trying to suggest that colorism only comes in to play between the extreme's of the color spectrum within the black community, you're being intellectually dishonest.Are you even black? What are you even talking about I'm making up those terms? Those are things that I personally witness in my life what people say and that is a result of colorism
Who care about what goes on india ? That's not my problem.
And my Argument isn't about colorism in asia and india. It's about the BLACK COMMUNITY and how its a problem for us.
Sorry, I was unclear. I wasn't suggesting that you were making up those terms. I was saying you were making up the idea that dissension like that didn't exist before miscegenation became somewhat prevalent.
And you don't have to care about India to see the similarities. Indians come in a variety of shades. They get conquered and ruled over by the British, and even now they have major colorism problems to the point where skin lightening is a common thing. Again, the origin of colorism is not interracial marriage. It's Europeans introducing the concept of "lighter skin being better" and the people controlled by Europeans subscribing to that concept in an effort for some to increase their stations. Just because your argument is about the black community doesn't mean you should be willfully blind to larger reality.
I'm not really sure what kind of answer you want. Does her marrying a white man somehow make her wrong if she says we should stop with colorism? Did she marry that white man because she wanted lighter children? Is she treating the ligher children better than her brown skinned daughter? You're making a baseless assumption that she married that man based on colorist reasons and then making a judgement on her and her message based on your unfounded assumption.
No if she was running around talking about black love, then you'd have a point. -
5th Letter wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »It didn't offend me...i said it was a stupid comparison to make because they have no correlation. Thinking what you said is stupid and being offended by it are 2 very different things. Bill Maher said something racist and stupid and shouldn't be given a pass. Umar has said some questionable ? and also touts credentials that haven't been able to be verified using the methods he himself suggested..but you're right this does seem to be a case of hit dogs will holler because you damn sure are hollering at any attempt to ask a question or want more clarification on anything he says just like folks defending their pastor/religion do when the hypocrisy of their religion is brought up like I also said earlier too.
So if it don't apply let it fly, you sure you weren't offended? Btw I asked you to answer some questions unless I missed it you haven't done so yet. But anyway if his message is solid what does his credentials have to do with anything? When it comes to the topic of things relating to his field then it's fair to question it. If the subject is psychology and you want to question his credentials then it's more than welcome to do so. But when he's speaking on black empowerment and y'all deflect into other ? it makes no sense.
Trust me it takes alot to actually offend me. You're confusing thinking what you said was stupid to mean I'm offended and that's a big reach to make. And again, his credentials matter when he's using them as the basis for some of his talking points. And idk if you've noticed but part of black empowerment is examining the psychology of the very people not only are you trying to empower but also that of those who you are trying to get from under as well...so once again his credentials come into play as they are a foundation for what he is saying.
And the ? saying you shouldn't question anything about the school unless you're contributing to it or also doing work for the cause as if there also shouldn't be those whose job it is to watch over to make sure black folks ain't being taken advantage of and being sold a false dream under false pretenses.
Again if it don't apply let it fly. Instead you wanna sassy respond back to me like a chick. When he's using psychology then it's fair to question him but when he doesn't y'all still question him. That's the problem, why does his degree matter when discussing black empowerment and helping black people?
I've addressed the school funding before, since y'all used it as a deflection tactic then unless y'all contributed shut the ? up.
How is discussing the educational background of someone trying to start a school and what they've done with money donated to start said school a deflection tactic? Deflection from what? -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote:Lol ? literally said that if you didn't contribute to his school proposal that you shouldn't speak on it, and I never said that anyone said Umar was beyond reproach. However, when you constantly go at people for voicing valid criticisms or concerns, you're clearly acting like he's beyond reproach. You're trying to force a square block into a round hole. If you disagree with something I say, address the point. Stop misusing logical terminology in an attempt to avoid having to make an actual counterpoint.
Aside from your stupid insistence on redefining what a straw man is, I mostly agree with you. It would be more productive for people to address his message rather than harp on credentials. However, if people think he is a liar and a conman, they are going to talk about his supposed lies and con. That's common sense. Your response is the same as that of the Trump supporters that were mad that people kept bringing up tax returns. Did you agree with them when they said people should leave that alone and focus on his message?
Because there were deflections being made using his school. And I never said that you said that I said that Umar is beyond reproach (we can play that stupid game all day smh) the main point of your argument has been you should be able to question him and his credentials, and I'm saying that you can question him but don't deflect from his message by bringing up stuff that's not relevant.
Obviously, some people believe the credibility of the messenger is relevant. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't mean they are out of line.
And yes, my main point has been that people should be able to question him. And you can be obtuse and act like people not saying you can't criticize him means that nobody thinks that way, but if you ? didn't have such a problem with him being criticized, this topic would have died long ago.
You've said that you'll give him the benefit of the doubt. They've said they won't. ? could have agreed to disagree on that point a long time ago, and steered the convo to the actual message, but you and others are stuck on trying to beat down ? who don't agree with you about Umar's credibility and importance.
When discussing black empowerment and actually doing stuff for his community how does that make him questionable? If we're talking about psychology and stuff of that nature then it's fair to question him. How is this being lost in translation? You and certain others question him and others have the right to disagree. So what it comes down to is you want to say stuff and then if anyone responds to your point then that's caping?
Nothing is being lost in translation. No one on your side has articulated it like that before. Again, people on your side have literally said ? like "if you don't contribute don't say anything" and "he's about bettering the black community, if you can't say anything good don't say anything." Comments like that aren't in line with what you just said.
It's been pointed out several times in this topic that he uses his credentials to support some of the ideas he has to empower the black community and that's why his credentials are being brought up, so why do you keep acting like people are bringing them up when they aren't relevant? Can you post a specific example of a time when the credentials were brought up in response to a completely unrelated point? From what I've seen the credentials are usually brought up with the school. Some disagree with his views on interracial marriage, but no one is claiming that ? should wife white women because Umar's degrees are fake.
Because (once again) the school comment was used as a deflection tactic to discredit, so the logic is if y'all didn't donate then shut the ? up. If things weren't being lost in translation this back and forth wouldn't be happening now. Also (once again sigh) no one is saying or implying that you have to only say nice things about Umar.
And (once again sigh) when dealing with things involving his degrees/certification etc you can challenge his credentials it's fair game, but don't do it to deflect from his points or argument. The entire interview in the OP is an example of credentials coming into question. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Why is it that @Kwan Dai is the only one on your side of the argument that actually argues points consistently? The rest of you just play these silly dodging games.
These ? like a broken record....
Except you can't flag em for spam......
-
5th Letter wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »It didn't offend me...i said it was a stupid comparison to make because they have no correlation. Thinking what you said is stupid and being offended by it are 2 very different things. Bill Maher said something racist and stupid and shouldn't be given a pass. Umar has said some questionable ? and also touts credentials that haven't been able to be verified using the methods he himself suggested..but you're right this does seem to be a case of hit dogs will holler because you damn sure are hollering at any attempt to ask a question or want more clarification on anything he says just like folks defending their pastor/religion do when the hypocrisy of their religion is brought up like I also said earlier too.
So if it don't apply let it fly, you sure you weren't offended? Btw I asked you to answer some questions unless I missed it you haven't done so yet. But anyway if his message is solid what does his credentials have to do with anything? When it comes to the topic of things relating to his field then it's fair to question it. If the subject is psychology and you want to question his credentials then it's more than welcome to do so. But when he's speaking on black empowerment and y'all deflect into other ? it makes no sense.
Trust me it takes alot to actually offend me. You're confusing thinking what you said was stupid to mean I'm offended and that's a big reach to make. And again, his credentials matter when he's using them as the basis for some of his talking points. And idk if you've noticed but part of black empowerment is examining the psychology of the very people not only are you trying to empower but also that of those who you are trying to get from under as well...so once again his credentials come into play as they are a foundation for what he is saying.
And the ? saying you shouldn't question anything about the school unless you're contributing to it or also doing work for the cause as if there also shouldn't be those whose job it is to watch over to make sure black folks ain't being taken advantage of and being sold a false dream under false pretenses.
Again if it don't apply let it fly. Instead you wanna sassy respond back to me like a chick. When he's using psychology then it's fair to question him but when he doesn't y'all still question him. That's the problem, why does his degree matter when discussing black empowerment and helping black people?
I've addressed the school funding before, since y'all used it as a deflection tactic then unless y'all contributed shut the ? up.
How is discussing the educational background of someone trying to start a school and what they've done with money donated to start said school a deflection tactic? Deflection from what?
Umar says black people should ___, the response but but what about his degrees and donation money. That's not deflecting? I literally did it in this thread earlier to prove a point. -
I like most of the ? Dr. Umar says and the ? he be on. Both sides of this argument agrees that nobody is perfect.
To lighten up the mood lets have a laugh. I thought this video was kind of funny
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kqQf3Syi0U -
5th Letter wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »It didn't offend me...i said it was a stupid comparison to make because they have no correlation. Thinking what you said is stupid and being offended by it are 2 very different things. Bill Maher said something racist and stupid and shouldn't be given a pass. Umar has said some questionable ? and also touts credentials that haven't been able to be verified using the methods he himself suggested..but you're right this does seem to be a case of hit dogs will holler because you damn sure are hollering at any attempt to ask a question or want more clarification on anything he says just like folks defending their pastor/religion do when the hypocrisy of their religion is brought up like I also said earlier too.
So if it don't apply let it fly, you sure you weren't offended? Btw I asked you to answer some questions unless I missed it you haven't done so yet. But anyway if his message is solid what does his credentials have to do with anything? When it comes to the topic of things relating to his field then it's fair to question it. If the subject is psychology and you want to question his credentials then it's more than welcome to do so. But when he's speaking on black empowerment and y'all deflect into other ? it makes no sense.
Trust me it takes alot to actually offend me. You're confusing thinking what you said was stupid to mean I'm offended and that's a big reach to make. And again, his credentials matter when he's using them as the basis for some of his talking points. And idk if you've noticed but part of black empowerment is examining the psychology of the very people not only are you trying to empower but also that of those who you are trying to get from under as well...so once again his credentials come into play as they are a foundation for what he is saying.
And the ? saying you shouldn't question anything about the school unless you're contributing to it or also doing work for the cause as if there also shouldn't be those whose job it is to watch over to make sure black folks ain't being taken advantage of and being sold a false dream under false pretenses.
Again if it don't apply let it fly. Instead you wanna sassy respond back to me like a chick. When he's using psychology then it's fair to question him but when he doesn't y'all still question him. That's the problem, why does his degree matter when discussing black empowerment and helping black people?
I've addressed the school funding before, since y'all used it as a deflection tactic then unless y'all contributed shut the ? up.
How is discussing the educational background of someone trying to start a school and what they've done with money donated to start said school a deflection tactic? Deflection from what?
Umar says black people should ___, the response but but what about his degrees and donation money. That's not deflecting? I literally did it in this thread earlier to prove a point.
Umar says black people should _______.
Black people say wait....
What are your credentials for psycoanalyzing the black community?????
? be like....
"Deflection"
-
5th Letter wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »It didn't offend me...i said it was a stupid comparison to make because they have no correlation. Thinking what you said is stupid and being offended by it are 2 very different things. Bill Maher said something racist and stupid and shouldn't be given a pass. Umar has said some questionable ? and also touts credentials that haven't been able to be verified using the methods he himself suggested..but you're right this does seem to be a case of hit dogs will holler because you damn sure are hollering at any attempt to ask a question or want more clarification on anything he says just like folks defending their pastor/religion do when the hypocrisy of their religion is brought up like I also said earlier too.
So if it don't apply let it fly, you sure you weren't offended? Btw I asked you to answer some questions unless I missed it you haven't done so yet. But anyway if his message is solid what does his credentials have to do with anything? When it comes to the topic of things relating to his field then it's fair to question it. If the subject is psychology and you want to question his credentials then it's more than welcome to do so. But when he's speaking on black empowerment and y'all deflect into other ? it makes no sense.
Trust me it takes alot to actually offend me. You're confusing thinking what you said was stupid to mean I'm offended and that's a big reach to make. And again, his credentials matter when he's using them as the basis for some of his talking points. And idk if you've noticed but part of black empowerment is examining the psychology of the very people not only are you trying to empower but also that of those who you are trying to get from under as well...so once again his credentials come into play as they are a foundation for what he is saying.
And the ? saying you shouldn't question anything about the school unless you're contributing to it or also doing work for the cause as if there also shouldn't be those whose job it is to watch over to make sure black folks ain't being taken advantage of and being sold a false dream under false pretenses.
Again if it don't apply let it fly. Instead you wanna sassy respond back to me like a chick. When he's using psychology then it's fair to question him but when he doesn't y'all still question him. That's the problem, why does his degree matter when discussing black empowerment and helping black people?
I've addressed the school funding before, since y'all used it as a deflection tactic then unless y'all contributed shut the ? up.
How is discussing the educational background of someone trying to start a school and what they've done with money donated to start said school a deflection tactic? Deflection from what?
Umar says black people should ___, the response but but what about his degrees and donation money. That's not deflecting? I literally did it in this thread earlier to prove a point.
Umar says black people should _______.
Black people say wait....
What are your credentials for psycoanalyzing the black community?????
? be like....
"Deflection"
When you talk about sports what's your qualifications have you ever coached or played professionally? See how that works? -
5th Letter wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »It didn't offend me...i said it was a stupid comparison to make because they have no correlation. Thinking what you said is stupid and being offended by it are 2 very different things. Bill Maher said something racist and stupid and shouldn't be given a pass. Umar has said some questionable ? and also touts credentials that haven't been able to be verified using the methods he himself suggested..but you're right this does seem to be a case of hit dogs will holler because you damn sure are hollering at any attempt to ask a question or want more clarification on anything he says just like folks defending their pastor/religion do when the hypocrisy of their religion is brought up like I also said earlier too.
So if it don't apply let it fly, you sure you weren't offended? Btw I asked you to answer some questions unless I missed it you haven't done so yet. But anyway if his message is solid what does his credentials have to do with anything? When it comes to the topic of things relating to his field then it's fair to question it. If the subject is psychology and you want to question his credentials then it's more than welcome to do so. But when he's speaking on black empowerment and y'all deflect into other ? it makes no sense.
Trust me it takes alot to actually offend me. You're confusing thinking what you said was stupid to mean I'm offended and that's a big reach to make. And again, his credentials matter when he's using them as the basis for some of his talking points. And idk if you've noticed but part of black empowerment is examining the psychology of the very people not only are you trying to empower but also that of those who you are trying to get from under as well...so once again his credentials come into play as they are a foundation for what he is saying.
And the ? saying you shouldn't question anything about the school unless you're contributing to it or also doing work for the cause as if there also shouldn't be those whose job it is to watch over to make sure black folks ain't being taken advantage of and being sold a false dream under false pretenses.
Again if it don't apply let it fly. Instead you wanna sassy respond back to me like a chick. When he's using psychology then it's fair to question him but when he doesn't y'all still question him. That's the problem, why does his degree matter when discussing black empowerment and helping black people?
I've addressed the school funding before, since y'all used it as a deflection tactic then unless y'all contributed shut the ? up.
How is discussing the educational background of someone trying to start a school and what they've done with money donated to start said school a deflection tactic? Deflection from what?
Umar says black people should ___, the response but but what about his degrees and donation money. That's not deflecting? I literally did it in this thread earlier to prove a point.
Umar says black people should _______.
Black people say wait....
What are your credentials for psycoanalyzing the black community?????
? be like....
"Deflection"
so if i have a solution to a math problem but i didnt minor or major in math...does that make the solution wrong?
while i understand what people are saying about his degree...an he should show it if its got and he speaks on it. but i dont think we should write him off for attention grabbing whether or not he has a degree.
it wont help or hurt the black cause.
the phonecall i make to see if hes qualified can be a cold call for potential business or networking.
him showing his degree.....ok now what. is it ok to listen? or if the message isnt for you..did You waste your time?
i think whoever posted the martin and Malcolm link....the was spot on.
the nice gets tired of being nice
the militant gets tired of being militant.
you only want to reach you people...and the more extreme you are the more frustrated you become and begin to weaken. the fight gets tired. -
5th Letter wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »It didn't offend me...i said it was a stupid comparison to make because they have no correlation. Thinking what you said is stupid and being offended by it are 2 very different things. Bill Maher said something racist and stupid and shouldn't be given a pass. Umar has said some questionable ? and also touts credentials that haven't been able to be verified using the methods he himself suggested..but you're right this does seem to be a case of hit dogs will holler because you damn sure are hollering at any attempt to ask a question or want more clarification on anything he says just like folks defending their pastor/religion do when the hypocrisy of their religion is brought up like I also said earlier too.
So if it don't apply let it fly, you sure you weren't offended? Btw I asked you to answer some questions unless I missed it you haven't done so yet. But anyway if his message is solid what does his credentials have to do with anything? When it comes to the topic of things relating to his field then it's fair to question it. If the subject is psychology and you want to question his credentials then it's more than welcome to do so. But when he's speaking on black empowerment and y'all deflect into other ? it makes no sense.
Trust me it takes alot to actually offend me. You're confusing thinking what you said was stupid to mean I'm offended and that's a big reach to make. And again, his credentials matter when he's using them as the basis for some of his talking points. And idk if you've noticed but part of black empowerment is examining the psychology of the very people not only are you trying to empower but also that of those who you are trying to get from under as well...so once again his credentials come into play as they are a foundation for what he is saying.
And the ? saying you shouldn't question anything about the school unless you're contributing to it or also doing work for the cause as if there also shouldn't be those whose job it is to watch over to make sure black folks ain't being taken advantage of and being sold a false dream under false pretenses.
Again if it don't apply let it fly. Instead you wanna sassy respond back to me like a chick. When he's using psychology then it's fair to question him but when he doesn't y'all still question him. That's the problem, why does his degree matter when discussing black empowerment and helping black people?
I've addressed the school funding before, since y'all used it as a deflection tactic then unless y'all contributed shut the ? up.
How is discussing the educational background of someone trying to start a school and what they've done with money donated to start said school a deflection tactic? Deflection from what?
Umar says black people should ___, the response but but what about his degrees and donation money. That's not deflecting? I literally did it in this thread earlier to prove a point.
Umar says black people should _______.
Black people say wait....
What are your credentials for psycoanalyzing the black community?????
? be like....
"Deflection"
When you talk about sports what's your qualifications have you ever coached or played professionally? See how that works?
I talk about sports....
My qualifications?
I played on the 1997 championship team...
Really? *looks for championship roster & pictures for 1997, but they are missing*
Did you really play on that team????
See how that works???
-
5th Letter wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »It didn't offend me...i said it was a stupid comparison to make because they have no correlation. Thinking what you said is stupid and being offended by it are 2 very different things. Bill Maher said something racist and stupid and shouldn't be given a pass. Umar has said some questionable ? and also touts credentials that haven't been able to be verified using the methods he himself suggested..but you're right this does seem to be a case of hit dogs will holler because you damn sure are hollering at any attempt to ask a question or want more clarification on anything he says just like folks defending their pastor/religion do when the hypocrisy of their religion is brought up like I also said earlier too.
So if it don't apply let it fly, you sure you weren't offended? Btw I asked you to answer some questions unless I missed it you haven't done so yet. But anyway if his message is solid what does his credentials have to do with anything? When it comes to the topic of things relating to his field then it's fair to question it. If the subject is psychology and you want to question his credentials then it's more than welcome to do so. But when he's speaking on black empowerment and y'all deflect into other ? it makes no sense.
Trust me it takes alot to actually offend me. You're confusing thinking what you said was stupid to mean I'm offended and that's a big reach to make. And again, his credentials matter when he's using them as the basis for some of his talking points. And idk if you've noticed but part of black empowerment is examining the psychology of the very people not only are you trying to empower but also that of those who you are trying to get from under as well...so once again his credentials come into play as they are a foundation for what he is saying.
And the ? saying you shouldn't question anything about the school unless you're contributing to it or also doing work for the cause as if there also shouldn't be those whose job it is to watch over to make sure black folks ain't being taken advantage of and being sold a false dream under false pretenses.
Again if it don't apply let it fly. Instead you wanna sassy respond back to me like a chick. When he's using psychology then it's fair to question him but when he doesn't y'all still question him. That's the problem, why does his degree matter when discussing black empowerment and helping black people?
I've addressed the school funding before, since y'all used it as a deflection tactic then unless y'all contributed shut the ? up.
How is discussing the educational background of someone trying to start a school and what they've done with money donated to start said school a deflection tactic? Deflection from what?
Umar says black people should ___, the response but but what about his degrees and donation money. That's not deflecting? I literally did it in this thread earlier to prove a point.
Umar says black people should _______.
Black people say wait....
What are your credentials for psycoanalyzing the black community?????
? be like....
"Deflection"
When you talk about sports what's your qualifications have you ever coached or played professionally? See how that works?
I talk about sports....
My qualifications?
I played on the 1997 championship team...
Really? *looks for championship roster & pictures for 1997, but they are missing*
Did you really play on that team????
See how that works???
I'm a professional basketball player who wants to talk about black empowerment but what's your qualifications for speaking on it? See how that works? -
2stepz_ahead wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »It didn't offend me...i said it was a stupid comparison to make because they have no correlation. Thinking what you said is stupid and being offended by it are 2 very different things. Bill Maher said something racist and stupid and shouldn't be given a pass. Umar has said some questionable ? and also touts credentials that haven't been able to be verified using the methods he himself suggested..but you're right this does seem to be a case of hit dogs will holler because you damn sure are hollering at any attempt to ask a question or want more clarification on anything he says just like folks defending their pastor/religion do when the hypocrisy of their religion is brought up like I also said earlier too.
So if it don't apply let it fly, you sure you weren't offended? Btw I asked you to answer some questions unless I missed it you haven't done so yet. But anyway if his message is solid what does his credentials have to do with anything? When it comes to the topic of things relating to his field then it's fair to question it. If the subject is psychology and you want to question his credentials then it's more than welcome to do so. But when he's speaking on black empowerment and y'all deflect into other ? it makes no sense.
Trust me it takes alot to actually offend me. You're confusing thinking what you said was stupid to mean I'm offended and that's a big reach to make. And again, his credentials matter when he's using them as the basis for some of his talking points. And idk if you've noticed but part of black empowerment is examining the psychology of the very people not only are you trying to empower but also that of those who you are trying to get from under as well...so once again his credentials come into play as they are a foundation for what he is saying.
And the ? saying you shouldn't question anything about the school unless you're contributing to it or also doing work for the cause as if there also shouldn't be those whose job it is to watch over to make sure black folks ain't being taken advantage of and being sold a false dream under false pretenses.
Again if it don't apply let it fly. Instead you wanna sassy respond back to me like a chick. When he's using psychology then it's fair to question him but when he doesn't y'all still question him. That's the problem, why does his degree matter when discussing black empowerment and helping black people?
I've addressed the school funding before, since y'all used it as a deflection tactic then unless y'all contributed shut the ? up.
How is discussing the educational background of someone trying to start a school and what they've done with money donated to start said school a deflection tactic? Deflection from what?
Umar says black people should ___, the response but but what about his degrees and donation money. That's not deflecting? I literally did it in this thread earlier to prove a point.
Umar says black people should _______.
Black people say wait....
What are your credentials for psycoanalyzing the black community?????
? be like....
"Deflection"
so if i have a solution to a math problem but i didnt minor or major in math...does that make the solution wrong?
while i understand what people are saying about his degree...an he should show it if its got and he speaks on it. but i dont think we should write him off for attention grabbing whether or not he has a degree.
it wont help or hurt the black cause.
the phonecall i make to see if hes qualified can be a cold call for potential business or networking.
him showing his degree.....ok now what. is it ok to listen? or if the message isnt for you..did You waste your time?
i think whoever posted the martin and Malcolm link....the was spot on.
the nice gets tired of being nice
the militant gets tired of being militant.
you only want to reach you people...and the more extreme you are the more frustrated you become and begin to weaken. the fight gets tired.
I'm not saying that you have to have a degree to accomplish anything....
I am saying that the act of deceiving in order to validate a position or claim authority is wrong....
And he useses it (PhD in psychology)to psycoanalyze black youth....
To me its a problem.....
And he is not solution oriented.....
Nothing wrong with being a paid lecturer.....
But, talk is talk.....
What action has he taken????
or what solution does he have????
-
5th Letter wrote: »
Because (once again) the school comment was used as a deflection tactic to discredit, so the logic is if y'all didn't donate then shut the ? up. If things weren't being lost in translation this back and forth wouldn't be happening now. Also (once again sigh) no one is saying or implying that you have to only say nice things about Umar.
And (once again sigh) when dealing with things involving his degrees/certification etc you can challenge his credentials it's fair game, but don't do it to deflect from his points or argument. The entire interview in the OP is an example of credentials coming into question.
I don't really understand what you mean by the school comment being used as a deflection, but I'll fall back on that. The school idea is what I most care about from Umar, so I never see it as a deflection. To me it's the most interesting point. So I can acknowledge that maybe you saw a time where it was brought up inappropriately that I didn't take the same way as you.
And you keep on giving me the "No one is saying..." line. You don't have to say anything. If every time someone brings up a legitimate criticism, you dismiss it as a deflection, you are effectively acting like he can't be criticized. Not only that, but people have actually gotten pretty close to saying he shouldn't be criticized, maybe not you specifically, but there are some comments in here that aren't far from that. Maybe we're all talking past each other or seeing things differently, but I don't see all these incidents where people are bringing up criticisms when they aren't relevant the way you claim.
Case in point, you point out that his credentials came into question in the OP. That wasn't some kind of deflection though. Roland made it clear that he was starting things off by addressing issues that have been following Umar. It's not like they were on a specific topic and Roland brought up the credentials, school, and Frederick Douglas to deflect from that topic. The topic at hand initially was the controversy surrounding him. And again, I blame Umar for that controversy continuing as much as others. Whenever these questions come up, he just pays a lot of lip service. There are ways that he can definitively shoot down these accusations if they are false, however, he never does it. He always responds with diatribes and gets mad at people for not just taking his word for it. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »
Because (once again) the school comment was used as a deflection tactic to discredit, so the logic is if y'all didn't donate then shut the ? up. If things weren't being lost in translation this back and forth wouldn't be happening now. Also (once again sigh) no one is saying or implying that you have to only say nice things about Umar.
And (once again sigh) when dealing with things involving his degrees/certification etc you can challenge his credentials it's fair game, but don't do it to deflect from his points or argument. The entire interview in the OP is an example of credentials coming into question.
I don't really understand what you mean by the school comment being used as a deflection, but I'll fall back on that. The school idea is what I most care about from Umar, so I never see it as a deflection. To me it's the most interesting point. So I can acknowledge that maybe you saw a time where it was brought up inappropriately that I didn't take the same way as you.
And you keep on giving me the "No one is saying..." line. You don't have to say anything. If every time someone brings up a legitimate criticism, you dismiss it as a deflection, you are effectively acting like he can't be criticized. Not only that, but people have actually gotten pretty close to saying he shouldn't be criticized, maybe not you specifically, but there are some comments in here that aren't far from that. Maybe we're all talking past each other or seeing things differently, but I don't see all these incidents where people are bringing up criticisms when they aren't relevant the way you claim.
Case in point, you point out that his credentials came into question in the OP. That wasn't some kind of deflection though. Roland made it clear that he was starting things off by addressing issues that have been following Umar. It's not like they were on a specific topic and Roland brought up the credentials, school, and Frederick Douglas to deflect from that topic. The topic at hand initially was the controversy surrounding him. And again, I blame Umar for that controversy continuing as much as others. Whenever these questions come up, he just pays a lot of lip service. There are ways that he can definitively shoot down these accusations if they are false, however, he never does it. He always responds with diatribes and gets mad at people for not just taking his word for it.
What legitimate criticism have I dismissed? I've said (once again smh) when speaking on things where his degrees or certification is relevant it is fair to question and challenge his qualifications, you keep saying things that make me believe you're being purposely obtuse. In the OP the interview was an ambush it was setup by Roland and others on the panel that weren't feeling him and the purpose was to attack him. I've seen Roland interview other people with controversial issues around them and he threw them softball questions. Maybe Umar should just post a pic with his degrees but even then his detractors are just going to find something else to harp on about him anyway. -
5th Letter wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »It didn't offend me...i said it was a stupid comparison to make because they have no correlation. Thinking what you said is stupid and being offended by it are 2 very different things. Bill Maher said something racist and stupid and shouldn't be given a pass. Umar has said some questionable ? and also touts credentials that haven't been able to be verified using the methods he himself suggested..but you're right this does seem to be a case of hit dogs will holler because you damn sure are hollering at any attempt to ask a question or want more clarification on anything he says just like folks defending their pastor/religion do when the hypocrisy of their religion is brought up like I also said earlier too.
So if it don't apply let it fly, you sure you weren't offended? Btw I asked you to answer some questions unless I missed it you haven't done so yet. But anyway if his message is solid what does his credentials have to do with anything? When it comes to the topic of things relating to his field then it's fair to question it. If the subject is psychology and you want to question his credentials then it's more than welcome to do so. But when he's speaking on black empowerment and y'all deflect into other ? it makes no sense.
Trust me it takes alot to actually offend me. You're confusing thinking what you said was stupid to mean I'm offended and that's a big reach to make. And again, his credentials matter when he's using them as the basis for some of his talking points. And idk if you've noticed but part of black empowerment is examining the psychology of the very people not only are you trying to empower but also that of those who you are trying to get from under as well...so once again his credentials come into play as they are a foundation for what he is saying.
And the ? saying you shouldn't question anything about the school unless you're contributing to it or also doing work for the cause as if there also shouldn't be those whose job it is to watch over to make sure black folks ain't being taken advantage of and being sold a false dream under false pretenses.
Again if it don't apply let it fly. Instead you wanna sassy respond back to me like a chick. When he's using psychology then it's fair to question him but when he doesn't y'all still question him. That's the problem, why does his degree matter when discussing black empowerment and helping black people?
I've addressed the school funding before, since y'all used it as a deflection tactic then unless y'all contributed shut the ? up.
How is discussing the educational background of someone trying to start a school and what they've done with money donated to start said school a deflection tactic? Deflection from what?
Umar says black people should ___, the response but but what about his degrees and donation money. That's not deflecting? I literally did it in this thread earlier to prove a point.
Umar says black people should _______.
Black people say wait....
What are your credentials for psycoanalyzing the black community?????
? be like....
"Deflection"
When you talk about sports what's your qualifications have you ever coached or played professionally? See how that works?
I talk about sports....
My qualifications?
I played on the 1997 championship team...
Really? *looks for championship roster & pictures for 1997, but they are missing*
Did you really play on that team????
See how that works???
practice squad ? -
There's no making full logical sense of people like this. There are numerous inconsistencies, lies, and ideas that go no where and dont make sense. Him not having verified credentials is just part of the misdirection. However as has been shown with the Fox crowd, there is a market for this type of thing. You dont have to tell the truth, your ideas dont have to make sense or go anywhere realistically, just manipulate people's emotions and frustrations and you can sell certain people (like some in this thread) heat in July. The issues have been pointed out to them but it doesnt matter. Whats funny is if I told dude I see how he's playing the game, he might even agree with me. Its just more logical people who need things to connectand make sense and cant just be played and lied too are like "look people its right in front of you" but its not about that with some people. And they can be manipulated and played for financial gain if you just say fck it. He may even believe in...whatever it is he claims to believe in but there are so many lies and nonsense ideas that he isnt going about it in a practical way that can maximize or even achieve any results. He doesnt even really articulate results. "Build a school" anybody can say that, then what? That would just be the start of that.
-
Has anyone in this argument actually disproven anything Dr. Umar has said about his credentials or background/descendancy?
-
2stepz_ahead wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »It didn't offend me...i said it was a stupid comparison to make because they have no correlation. Thinking what you said is stupid and being offended by it are 2 very different things. Bill Maher said something racist and stupid and shouldn't be given a pass. Umar has said some questionable ? and also touts credentials that haven't been able to be verified using the methods he himself suggested..but you're right this does seem to be a case of hit dogs will holler because you damn sure are hollering at any attempt to ask a question or want more clarification on anything he says just like folks defending their pastor/religion do when the hypocrisy of their religion is brought up like I also said earlier too.
So if it don't apply let it fly, you sure you weren't offended? Btw I asked you to answer some questions unless I missed it you haven't done so yet. But anyway if his message is solid what does his credentials have to do with anything? When it comes to the topic of things relating to his field then it's fair to question it. If the subject is psychology and you want to question his credentials then it's more than welcome to do so. But when he's speaking on black empowerment and y'all deflect into other ? it makes no sense.
Trust me it takes alot to actually offend me. You're confusing thinking what you said was stupid to mean I'm offended and that's a big reach to make. And again, his credentials matter when he's using them as the basis for some of his talking points. And idk if you've noticed but part of black empowerment is examining the psychology of the very people not only are you trying to empower but also that of those who you are trying to get from under as well...so once again his credentials come into play as they are a foundation for what he is saying.
And the ? saying you shouldn't question anything about the school unless you're contributing to it or also doing work for the cause as if there also shouldn't be those whose job it is to watch over to make sure black folks ain't being taken advantage of and being sold a false dream under false pretenses.
Again if it don't apply let it fly. Instead you wanna sassy respond back to me like a chick. When he's using psychology then it's fair to question him but when he doesn't y'all still question him. That's the problem, why does his degree matter when discussing black empowerment and helping black people?
I've addressed the school funding before, since y'all used it as a deflection tactic then unless y'all contributed shut the ? up.
How is discussing the educational background of someone trying to start a school and what they've done with money donated to start said school a deflection tactic? Deflection from what?
Umar says black people should ___, the response but but what about his degrees and donation money. That's not deflecting? I literally did it in this thread earlier to prove a point.
Umar says black people should _______.
Black people say wait....
What are your credentials for psycoanalyzing the black community?????
? be like....
"Deflection"
so if i have a solution to a math problem but i didnt minor or major in math...does that make the solution wrong?
while i understand what people are saying about his degree...an he should show it if its got and he speaks on it. but i dont think we should write him off for attention grabbing whether or not he has a degree.
it wont help or hurt the black cause.
the phonecall i make to see if hes qualified can be a cold call for potential business or networking.
him showing his degree.....ok now what. is it ok to listen? or if the message isnt for you..did You waste your time?
i think whoever posted the martin and Malcolm link....the was spot on.
the nice gets tired of being nice
the militant gets tired of being militant.
you only want to reach you people...and the more extreme you are the more frustrated you become and begin to weaken. the fight gets tired.
Well do you claim to have a degree in said subject? If not then it doesn't matter. If you do then it does. Not to say you can't still be right but you also shouldn't be shocked if people question credentials you boast about but can't actually back up
