The "Nonblack" version of "The Talk"

[beagledave]

http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonb...z1rHzlfgy8


When your fellow writers at the National Review are quickly distancing themselves from you, you can rest assured that you are in the looney wing of the conservative movement.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/295...rich-lowry

[Black]

beagledave wrote:
http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonb...z1rHzlfgy8


When your fellow writers at the National Review are quickly distancing themselves from you, you can rest assured that you are in the looney wing of the conservative movement.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/295...rich-lowry

Takimag must be getting hammered-- I could only load the first page.

[rjmacs]

Wow. That has to be the most unreflective piece of sociological babbleshit i've read in a very long time. I won't quote it here, because it bears full consideration. Suffice it to say that his analysis is 100% ahistorical, focused entirely on objects (in this case, mostly "blacks" ) to the exclusion of structures (in this case, economic, governmental, judicial, or social), and wholly static. I would LOVE to have ten minutes on a stage with him, just to see his face as the entire thing comes unraveled under critical questioning.

Edited for stupid accidental smiley.

[davester]

That guy needs somebody to give him a big smack on the side of his head...perhaps several, perhaps followed by tar and feathering and run out of town on a rail.

[Lux Interior]

So, IOW, black parents need to have "The Talk" with their kids because morons like this have talks like that with their kids.

Lovely.

[Black]

Lux Interior wrote:
So, IOW, black parents need to have "The Talk" with their kids because morons like this have talks like that with their kids.

Lovely.

There's always hope that this person's kids don't listen to him and are even embarrassed by him, like normal kids...

[the_poochies]

"A small cohort of blacks—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us."

I'm sure that this cracker has very little personal experience dealing with black folk.

[OWC Jamie]

Probably believes you cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent, too.

[$tevie]

I never got around to reading the article and now it won't load at all for me. Perhaps it has been taken down?

The National Review fired the author for his 'nasty and indefensible' article. Although it wasn't written for the NR, they feel he is so closely associated with their magazine that they wanted to sever the relationship.

[mrbigstuff]

rjmacs wrote:
Wow. That has to be the most unreflective piece of sociological babbleshit i've read in a very long time. I won't quote it here, because it bears full consideration. Suffice it to say that his analysis is 100% ahistorical, focused entirely on objects (in this case, mostly "blacks" ) to the exclusion of structures (in this case, economic, governmental, judicial, or social), and wholly static. I would LOVE to have ten minutes on a stage with him, just to see his face as the entire thing comes unraveled under critical questioning.

well-stated. the "wholly static" part is important in this case, as people like this person seem to believe such incidents and behaviors are outside of their normal worries. therefore, it's real easy to make assumptions and chide while not seeing this as serious.