Another Perspective

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Man. Droopy really hates dark-skinned Morlocks.

- Doc

[_Droopy]

I don't have time tonight to respond to EA's continued personal attacks, innuendos, and imaginative glosses of John McWhorter's own words (let alone his gross misrepresentation of both mine and my motives in making these arguments), but I'll be back at some point to continue my (doubtless vain) attempt at a rational discussion with our dominant crop of leftists and Bill Mahr libertine/militant secularist libertarians at a later date.

In the meantime, just be aware that some of your mascots do not consider themselves such, do not perceive themselves to be in need of your Platonic patronization, and do not appreciate in the least what you have been, for decades, willing accomplices in doing to a disproportionate number of those among them who have opted out of civilization for "keeping it real" and avoiding, at all costs, the identity group betrayal of "authentic" blackness.

[_Droopy]

Man. Droopy really hates dark-skinned Morlocks.

- Doc

Throw as many Molotov Cocktails as you want, Cam. You clearly have nothing to say and are not capable of rationally defending that which you have said.

Move along...nothing to see here.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Droopy's trying to make several points simultaneously, and each of them has various problems. Just to summarize, he seems to be arguing at least the following:

--Someone (Liberals? Leftists? Academics?) is claiming that hip-hip is the only legitimate expression of low-socioeconomic status, urban blackness. Who is arguing this, though?
--That this notion has been reinforced by academia for the past few decades (where is the evidence for this?)
--That the claim that hip-hop has its basis in the experience of being black and poor is false, because you don't see something similar to hip-hop amongst poor whites, Asians, "Oakies," or others. (Could it be that poverty and race aren't the only things informing this music?)
--That hip-hop is indicative of "social pathology," though what this "pathology" is, exactly, is unclear.
--That hip-hop (all of it, I guess, including, I guess, artists like Alicia Keys and R. Kelly) is "thuggish" in its very nature.

I'd be interested in seeing Droopy actually making an evidence-based case for any one of these arguments, though maybe EA is right and all his commentary amounts to little more than his opinion that "inner city blacks into hip-hop are uncivilized barbarians."

[_Doctor Scratch]

I don't have time tonight to respond to EA's continued personal attacks, innuendos, and imaginative glosses of John McWhorter's own words (let alone his gross misrepresentation of both mine and my motives in making these arguments), but I'll be back at some point to continue my (doubtless vain) attempt at a rational discussion with our dominant crop of leftists and Bill Mahr libertine/militant secularist libertarians at a later date.

It's "vain" because you don't have any actual evidence or rational points to back up your argument, Droopy. It's as simple as that. You could have all the time in the world to respond and it still wouldn't help your case.

[_Droopy]

--Someone (Liberals? Leftists? Academics?) is claiming that hip-hip is the only legitimate expression of low-socioeconomic status, urban blackness. Who is arguing this, though?

Nobody. You just created a strawman, which indicates that you are probably both not well read or conversant with this issue, over the last several decades of its development, and probably have not read these threads, if you've really followed them at all in order, with too much focus.

--That this notion has been reinforced by academia for the past few decades (where is the evidence for this?)

All around you, in profusion. Its called "reading." Scratch, and you have to do it both deeply and widely, and with consistency. It takes time to become truly "educated" in a more than formalistic sense (and by the way, how have you managed to miss a major part of the social and intellectual history of your own society over the last 30 - 40 years?).

--That the claim that hip-hop has its basis in the experience of being black and poor is false, because you don't see something similar to hip-hop amongst poor whites, Asians, "Oakies," or others. (Could it be that poverty and race aren't the only things informing this music?)

Another strawman. No one has argued that. The "experience of being black" in post 1960s America is as diverse and heterodox as to experience, opportunity, and potential perspective as for any other minority or the white majority population. Hip-Hop, or at least its dominant form, has a "basis of experience" among a sub-group of blacks trapped in the inner cities the Left and the Democratic party have created and maintained since the middle sixties and which both white leftist intellectuals and black race hustlers and ideologues have built their careers, livelihoods, and cultural hegemony and influence upon.

That edifice will be defended to the bitter end by the forces and interests that have created it.

--That hip-hop is indicative of "social pathology," though what this "pathology" is, exactly, is unclear.

Read these several threads first, and then post. Scratch.

--That hip-hop (all of it, I guess, including, I guess, artists like Alicia Keys and R. Kelly) is "thuggish" in its very nature.

This is now the classic Scratch/Beastie/Cam/EA strawman/smear/debate avoidance mechanism (which is just the same old leftist cry of "racism!" every time their shibboleths and self-satisfied pieties are substantively challenged. Shall I post yet another photo of a white flag, Scratch, because that's what all of this king of thing unambiguously points to).

I'd be interested in seeing Droopy actually making an evidence-based case for any one of these arguments,

You clearly haven't even been following the posts, and, given your history, even if you had, it would be more than futile to expect a judicious, logically coherent analysis or counter-argument from you.

Just keep throwing race card bombs, like every other leftist in here, and walk away from the arena of ideas thinking you've won the debate by ad hominem default.

It is, quite clearly, who you are.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

All I know is Droopy has started something like 14 threads dealing with Dark-Skinned Morlocks, and I'm supposed to draw absolutely zero conclusions other than he's angry with the Left? I guess? I have no idea, except that Droopy really damned hates dark-skinned Morlock culture (whatever that is). Other than that he won't make his POINT clear. It's just one bizarre thread after another...

- Doc

Post Script- Droopy's totally not racist. Totally. He's a White Male Conservative Mormon living in South Carolina. Racism is totally not a legitimate assumption to make.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Droopy:

Pause for a moment and take a look at this:

--Someone (Liberals? Leftists? Academics?) is claiming that hip-hip is the only legitimate expression of low-socioeconomic status, urban blackness. Who is arguing this, though?

Nobody. You just created a strawman, which indicates that you are probably both not well read or conversant with this issue, over the last several decades of its development, and probably have not read these threads, if you've really followed them at all in order, with too much focus.

You say that "Nobody" is making this argument, and then, in your very next response, you say:

--That this notion has been reinforced by academia for the past few decades (where is the evidence for this?)

All around you, in profusion. Its called "reading." Scratch, and you have to do it both deeply and widely, and with consistency. It takes time to become truly "educated" in a more than formalistic sense (and by the way, how have you managed to miss a major part of the social and intellectual history of your own society over the last 30 - 40 years?).

Do you see the problem here? First you claim that "Nobody" is making the argument, and in your next breath, you claim that the "evidence" that people are making this argument is "All around you, in profusion." Do you not see how that doesn't make sense?

--That the claim that hip-hop has its basis in the experience of being black and poor is false, because you don't see something similar to hip-hop amongst poor whites, Asians, "Oakies," or others. (Could it be that poverty and race aren't the only things informing this music?)

Another strawman. No one has argued that.

Then what argument is this passage meant to support?:

Why did no antinomian, anti-civilizational thug culture glorifying criminality, drug use, macho posing, misogyny, predatory, adventuristic male sexuality, and gang membership originate among the Oakies or among the vast numbers of unemployed blue collar workers of the Depression era?

Why did the underclass thug culture only appear among blacks themselves during the 70s and 80s, and why was it overwhelmingly absent among American blacks from the early 60s and back to the early part of the 20th century, when blacks were, as a group, not only much poorer but legitimately oppressed as a racial minority?

You're asking a series of rhetorical questions, no? What point were you trying to make?

The "experience of being black" in post 1960s America is as diverse and heterodox as to experience, opportunity, and potential perspective as for any other minority or the white majority population. Hip-Hop, or at least its dominant form, has a "basis of experience" among a sub-group of blacks trapped in the inner cities the Left and the Democratic party have created and maintained since the middle sixties and which both white leftist intellectuals and black race hustlers and ideologues have built their careers, livelihoods, and cultural hegemony and influence upon.

Okay. Well, hey: at least you've got a (relatively) straightforward, (potentially) supportable assertion here. Why don't you put up some concrete evidence showing how "white leftist intellectuals and black race hustlers and ideologues have built their careers, livelihoods, and cultural hegemony and influence" by keeping "a sub-group of blacks trapped in the inner cities [that] the Left and the Democratic party have created and maintained since the middle sixties." Can you cite some examples?

I can offer at least a couple of counter-examples. It's hard to claim that rappers like Dr. Dre or Ice T or 50 Cent are still "trapped in the inner cities." Right? These guys are incredibly wealthy. The same goes for P. Diddy and Jay-Z and all sorts of others. So how do you reconcile this with your claim?

--That hip-hop is indicative of "social pathology," though what this "pathology" is, exactly, is unclear.

Read these several threads first, and then post. Scratch.

I did. You said that hip-hop is "thuggish," but we showed you that the genre extends beyond the sorts of "gangsta" motifs that would square with your claim.

--That hip-hop (all of it, I guess, including, I guess, artists like Alicia Keys and R. Kelly) is "thuggish" in its very nature.

This is now the classic Scratch/Beastie/Cam/EA strawman/smear/debate avoidance mechanism (which is just the same old leftist cry of "racism!" every time their shibboleths and self-satisfied pieties are substantively challenged. Shall I post yet another photo of a white flag, Scratch, because that's what all of this king of thing unambiguously points to).

No need to post a white flag, Droopy. You already bailed out of your back-and-forth with EA--that in and of itself counts as a "white flag." No need to flagellate yourself.

I'd be interested in seeing Droopy actually making an evidence-based case for any one of these arguments,

You clearly haven't even been following the posts, and, given your history, even if you had, it would be more than futile to expect a judicious, logically coherent analysis or counter-argument from you.

Just keep throwing race card bombs, like every other leftist in here, and walk away from the arena of ideas thinking you've won the debate by ad hominem default.

It is, quite clearly, who you are.

Would it be helpful if I more clearly articulated what I mean by "an evidence-based case"? Let's take one of your basic claims, which is that some kind of Leftists/intellectual cabal has created the ghettos which in turn led to the rise of hip-hop. Could you construct, using examples, a causal chain that demonstrates what you mean? E.g., show how "Leftist" policy, in the form of real laws, real, citable, historical occurrences, contributed to the conditions that inform hip-hop? Why not lay all this out? I mean, you think we're all dumb, so why not provide the evidence in as clear a way as possible?

[_EAllusion]

--Someone (Liberals? Leftists? Academics?) is claiming that hip-hip is the only legitimate expression of low-socioeconomic status, urban blackness. Who is arguing this, though?

Nobody. You just created a strawman, which indicates that you are probably both not well read or conversant with this issue, over the last several decades of its development, and probably have not read these threads, if you've really followed them at all in order, with too much focus.

Or maybe he just read your posts. If you click the little "1" at the bottom of your page, you can find some poster named "Droopy" saying this: "First, according to EA and Beastie (and most on the Left), its poverty that produces gangsta rap, Hip-Hop culture, and underclass values, Hip-Hop being the authentic voice and expression of that experience."

If you find clicking that "1" too difficult, you could also look at the person who wrote the next line in this very post. He contradicts your assertion that "nobody" makes that argument. He asserts that the evidence that people are doing it is, "All around you, in profusion."

You might want to have a conversation with him. I should forewarn you, though, that he is mostly just a twister of buzzwords and you might find it difficult to figure out what he thinks. I'm not sure he knows beyond inarticulate rage against hip hop culture mixed in with unfortunate stereotyping. Perhaps if more hip-hop artists looked like this:



instead of this:



he wouldn't create umpteen posts on the subject.