Music Banter - we are not your weapons / we are women

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)

- - we are not your weapons / we are women (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/67062-we-not-your-weapons-we-women.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali (Post 1271846)

No. Of course issues like domestic violence problems should be addressed.
Do you believe that domestic violence should be addressed solely on the basis of racial oppression?

Oh totally. If it was up to me.

Quote:

I don't disagree. But she is representing the larger discussion with something that is designed to create an emotional reaction in order to advance a social agenda, which I don't think is appropriate in lieu of actually taking all factors into account and using statistics to back it up. Of course, that could very well take some of the light off her own situation, which I'm guessing is why she approached at the angle she did. She's in the victim position, which carries more weight if she doesn't allude to other factors that could possibly weaken it from a standpoint of convincibility.

The statistics do back her up though. Your trying to put some alterior motive on her, "shes just using her rape to take advantage of you, the reader". I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that the addition of her rape in the article wasn't merely a guilt trip.

Quote:

I agree, but if we both agree to this, then we cannot see the wrong in others addressing the issue from a perspective that runs counter to hers, assuming we're willing to take the issue seriously enough to accept that these individual perspectives could be a distraction from the truth as a whole. I would say the most reasonable position to take would be one that appreciates all factors, rather than those that simply have the propensity to create an emotional, reactive perception, which I'm sure she was going for, otherwise she would not have made it seem like the only reason she was raped is because black men are repressed in Haiti and white men rule the world.

Why can i only align with her? If i see someone else's article I'll accept if i want to. By all means show me a "counter" to her article and I'll read it.

You keep trying to simplify what she said to fit your interpretation. I don't think she made white men the sole reason behind the troubles in haiti, but it is a very significant one. They are in a position to do something about it.

Quote:

I was just wondering if you included it to attack my position based on what some random people on a random "conservative" forum said. I'd also wonder if you think conservatism is based on what moronic kids on the internet say.

I'm sure you have quite a lot to ponder. I wouldn't exclude it to kids,no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparky (Post 1271847)

Oh totally. If it was up to me.

I don't think I really need to respond to this. It sort of speaks for itself.

Quote:

You don't seem to understand the idea behind what it is I'm actually saying. I'm not saying she's manipulating people intentionally. Unintentionally, however, it's hard for that to not be the case when you publish an article to the public only telling your readers a particular angle as it relates to an agenda. I'm simply saying that if she were unbiased and objective, her story would have not just used a personal tragedy to unequivocally link to the totality of oppression.

Quote:

The counter is right in front of your face. Opposing opinions do not have to manifest themselves in the form of the media that's being opposed. If you do not consider my opinion a valid form of opposition, then I wonder about your definition of basic things in general.
Anyway, I'm simply making an analysis of the article on which to base my opinion on. That's generally how you do it, if you wish to form and vocalize an opinion about something. And as far as whether I'm only seeing one portion of the evidence for my own interpretation, I could say the same about you. In reality, we're both right. What you're saying is correct, and what I'm saying is also correct. Our real disagreement, whether you still have yet to realize it or not, is in the degree at which either position is more important on a larger scale.

For me, considering all the factors behind this sort of thing as it relates to racial oppression is a tad bit more important than casting rape as the sole arbiter of its existence. Especially when you can get more support for change based on the totality of the problem, versus a single circumstance and event.

We're both speaking the same language. We're just not saying the same thing.

Quote:

I'm sure you have quite a lot to ponder. I wouldn't exclude it to kids,no.

I won't assume your meaning here, so I'll just chalk this up to garbled nonsense unless you're confident and articulate enough to say what's actually on your mind.

Quote:

Why is the article biased? Why are we judging it's merit based on whether or not it has an agenda?

Quote:

I'm all for opposing opinions, i just think your opinion is flawed.

Quote:

Anyway, I'm simply making an analysis of the article on which to base my opinion on. That's generally how you do it, if you wish to form and vocalize an opinion about something. And as far as whether I'm only seeing one portion of the evidence for my own interpretation, I could say the same about you. In reality, we're both right. What you're saying is correct, and what I'm saying is also correct. Our real disagreement, whether you still have yet to realize it or not, is in the degree at which either position is more important on a larger scale.

I disagree with the notion that she took liberties with her article in order to portray something other than reality. I don't see the two portions of evidence, I see one, and it's all synonymous with her article.

Quote:

For me, considering all the factors behind this sort of thing as it relates to racial oppression is a tad bit more important than casting rape as the sole arbiter of its existence. Especially when you can get more support for change based on the totality of the problem, versus a single circumstance and event.

Again, this is not what she was doing with the article. It's strange to criticize the article for not being an something entirely else.

The totality of the problem has been apparent for many decades. She decided to share her direct misfortune due to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali (Post 1271825)

This part seems a bit misguided:
"Because women–and particularly women of color–are forced to bear the brunt of the Black male response to the Black male plight."

That's just the first thing I noticed. It seems like she's blaming rape on racial oppression and turning a sick individual's actions into a social cause, while simultaneously relieving him of moral responsibilities.

From the way I understand it, I don't think she's trying to justify rape because of oppression, but clarifying the possible connection. It's an example of extreme anguish as some backlash outcry in contrast to the severity of oppression. I believe she's using her story as a preliminary, yes.

Quote:

We are women, not weapons of war.
...
...
...

However I think this statement is an opposing stand of such actions as well, no matter if it's an affront response. I'm not sure, but I see this attacking both issues, not justifying one for the other...

Quote:

Originally Posted by zevokes (Post 1271831)

please elaborate... i'm genuinely curious as to the foundations of this statement.

Sure.

First, she thinks rape is occurring because of 'oppression'. Meaning, then, this rape was some expression of rage.

Second, she thinks Haiti's status of ****hole is the fault of anyone other than the Haitians themselves.

Etc.

What is amusing is the religious fervor she exhibits. She invokes Malcom X like one invoking Christ, she throws her bracelet down as though it were a crucifix, etc.