Azealia Banks doesn't date Black Men

Gravity

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
18,816
Reputation
2,160
Daps
56,251
Too many threads and too many names. The fact that you seem so upset by my typing may signal that you are one of them.

Do you decry white supremacy and while being enamored by the daughters of your oppressor? :lupe:

Peace
:heh: You cats jump from one corny tactic to the next. Now you're tryna run "u mad" shyt. If it's so many names and threads then it should easy for your to be specific. You're not naming names because your only intent was to deflect/distract from the criticisms of Banks. You don't know if any such hypocrites exist(hence you asking me). The whole "yall do it too" shyt is just a bytchmade passive aggressive way of defending her.
 

Jimi Swagger

I say whatever I think should be said
Supporter
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
4,368
Reputation
-1,340
Daps
6,060
Reppin
Turtle Island to DXB
Iggy is a coal burner and Banks a bedwench. Seems like women nowadays are appreciated by men outside their race, expect Latinas since all men including their own cape for them.

Guess she took a page from Stacey Dash's playbook.
 

Blackout

just your usual nerdy brotha
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
39,991
Reputation
8,148
Daps
98,612
Too many threads and too many names. The fact that you seem so upset by my typing may signal that you are one of them.

Do you decry white supremacy and while being enamored by the daughters of your oppressor? :lupe:

Peace
It should be easy if there are many threads and many names to pick a few and post it.
 

godkiller

"We are the Fury"
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
26,164
Reputation
-4,773
Daps
35,659
Reppin
NULL
Iggy is a coal burner and Banks a bedwench. Seems like women nowadays are appreciated by men outside their race, expect Latinas since all men including their own cape for them.

Guess she took a page from Stacey Dash's playbook.

Your assessment of the situation is flawed and your use of the term "coal burner" is disturbing (but revealing :mjpls: since only a certain group uses that term). Banks' is not appreciated by cacs like Iggy is appreciated by all. This is plainly clear since cacs don't defend Banks on Twitter or otherwise, buy her music, or otherwise care about her. Iggy, on the other hand, is far more loved by them, and would get stanned per usual if she wasn't with a black men. Iggy still gets residual cac stanning in a way Banks' never does in that Iggy is given awards. So even while Banks' is a c00n, she is still below a "coal burner" like Iggy. The discrepancy shows you just how sad Banks' is. Stacey Dash too was not even appreciated by cacs until she became an anti-black conservative -- or in other words, began serving cac's racist ends. Evidence shows she too is :trash: to them, yet she defends them relentlessly like a chained dog does its master. All things facts considered, both Banks' and Dash make a mockery of themselves and black people. They are useful idiots.
 
Last edited:

d'jarbargel

Rookie
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
76
Reputation
-90
Daps
45
this chick has done a good job of alienating herself from pretty much everybody

she says all kind of racist and hateful shyt towards whites, which means no self-respecting white man is going to do any more than dump a load in her. And then says she doesn't want to date black men....

yeah good luck with all that:smugdraper: hope you like them asian peckers
 
Last edited:

Blackout

just your usual nerdy brotha
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
39,991
Reputation
8,148
Daps
98,612
Wait my friend. When did black men become synonymous with the black community? By the looks of things black men have checked out of the black community via IR mating, non marriage, non protecting etc. You've heard the drill. If AB decides to give black men the deduces she missing out on nothing because there aren't any black men around providing the essentials for community life. Just dikk and drama.
Why do you spread this propoganda?
 

godkiller

"We are the Fury"
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
26,164
Reputation
-4,773
Daps
35,659
Reppin
NULL
Wait my friend. When did black men become synonymous with the black community? By the looks of things black men have checked out of the black community via IR mating, non marriage, non protecting etc. You've heard the drill. If AB decides to give black men the deduces she missing out on nothing because there aren't any black men around providing the essentials for community life. Just dikk and drama.

In one post you clearly imply that "we"--black people--have nothing worth protecting since we don't have cacs' community, economics (a bunch of nothing, in other words). Besides that, black men are the progenitors of black people. We give black people all they need by virtue of their birth. Black people's worth is not measured by whether we live in caves or mansions. This is what you don't understand. I won't even dignify your " black men are dikk or drama" response with a reply. All the racist cac Yahoo comments classify as drama too.
 
Last edited:

AntiVenom

Bedwench & Armchair Militant Killer
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
1,633
Reputation
-180
Daps
2,932
Reppin
NULL
Another low self esteemed black woman. Dumb celebrities ought to be ignored

nah, you dont ignore the bedwench. They need to be put on blast, made to look stupid and their careers destroyed. That is how this situation needs to be dealt with. fukk the kid gloves.
can this hoe fall in a well


i rather she "fall" onto some bullets:manny:

A lot of black women think like her.

the number is growing because no one is putting them in check

lets be honest, I'll smash Iggy any day over Azealia, especially not with that hairy ass roast beef of hers. That shyt is all beady.:scust:

:ooh: shots fired!

Both them bytches wack but Iggy can get this dikk before Banks by a long shot.

iggy-azalea-swimsuit-photo.jpg

now thats more like it. sexiest albino out there :myman:
 

AntiVenom

Bedwench & Armchair Militant Killer
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
1,633
Reputation
-180
Daps
2,932
Reppin
NULL
This is the same hypocrite that is calling out white society and white supremacy--ergo white men--all the damn time. She then turns around and degrades black man to the benefit of the white supremacists whom dictate the very society she rails against.

To address her actual statement, if she believes black men "take black women for granted", surely she must think white men think much less of black women since white men don't include black women in almost anything, mostly because cacs think black women are akin to inferior apes.

On the other hand, black men are always including black women in what we do and think the most of black women. So if Banks holds black men as undateable because of our pathologies (which don't include white supremacy), but doesn't hold cacs to the same standard, then she applies a different standard to black and white men, which is in itself a form of anti-black racism and white supremacy (which she claims she is so vehemently against).

Banks is just a tornado of self hatred and hypocrisy. Complain about white supremacy and then worship it, brehs.

This the face of your enemy gentlemen. The bedwench is a trojan horse. This is why i go so hard
:manny: I dont expect artists to be professors in race and sociology

neither do i but i dont expect them to turn around and shyt on their own either :rudy:

These cats were fooled for a hot minute......:mjlol:

not me:sas2:

Another hidden irony here is that cacs don't give a fukk about Azealia Banks, and never have. Black men were the only male group to offer her ANY support because she was feigning pro-blackness. The rest just think she's an ugly resentful crone. And since Banks' has revealed her anti-black male and pro-white supremacy sentiments, dudes who formerly lended her their ear will now migrate to supporting stars like Iggy Azalea, who is objectively better anyway. The brehs who didn't support in the past still won't because she's still :trash: . White women, meanwhile, have already stopped supporting Banks' after her fake rants, which are insulting to cacs. Now it's only black women whom support this bipolar c00n.

this is your reward for supporting a bw with questionable motives. all of you that defended and sided with her deserve this slap in the face. enjoy and think twice the next time.
and any bw that supports her now is a c00n. thats a good litmus test.
 

mcdivit85

Superstar
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
4,529
Reputation
3,660
Daps
18,340
Reppin
Sound Reasoning
If I were enamored with the daughters of my oppressor, that would not be so bad as being enamored with the oppressor himself. After all, was it the daughters of the oppressor that enslaved blacks and wiped out the Natives, Maoris, etc? No. So obviously one must treat the oppressor differently than would be anything else. This is common sense. Merely because something is similar in kind does not mean it is similar in type. The Natives made this mistake in classifying the killing by their own peoples as the same killing the Spanairds did. The Natives thought all killing was the same, like you think all c00nery is the same and women think sexism is the same as racism. History says the Natives were wrong, and they paid dearly for it (I will go into detail in the following paragraph).

But besides that logic, the appropriate thing to do when one sees two wrongs is to stop the other wrong, not to ignore both and make excuses by saying, "Well you do the same thing'.

The Natives tried that. They used to war against each other and say, "Well the Aztecs kill Natives too, so why put anymore blame on the Spanairds?" And, strictly speaking, the other Native tribes who fought the Aztecs alongside the Spanairds, were right: the Aztecs did kill other Natives like the Spanairds did. But the Aztecs were Natives themselves and the Natives variously killed each for generations without any ill consequence. Warring between tribes is a natural part of human life. History proved it was the Spanairds--not the hegemonic Aztecs that murdered scores of Natives and sacrificed the rest to pagan gods--whose killing mattered. When the Aztecs fell, the Spanairds' greatest form of resistance fell with them and the latter went on to destroy every last Native in South America. So perhaps there was a difference between the oppressor's killing and others, like I implied there is a difference between the oppressor and his daughter, then? Pity the Natives did not realize it. The Europeans did. The Europeans did not focus on killing other Europeans--who killed more Europeans than any other group--over killing Natives. Why? Because the Europeans knew there was a difference between an Englishman killing a Spanaird and a Native killing both. Rather than focus on their regional enemies, Europeans focused on DIVIDE AND CONQUERING between them. They fought their prejudices, DIVIDED AND CONQUERED THE AMERICAS, and won for it. The Europeans realized whose killing mattered (i.e. the Natives) and whose didn't (i.e. the other Europeans').

So, it's ok to date white women but go to war with white men? Because they're a different kind of white than white men.

I skimmed the first paragraph at best, so maybe I missed the point with the Aztecs. If you're justifying the black male opposite of what this chick is doing, like some are doing this thread and other threads, then that's fine.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy :yeshrug:

Peace
 

godkiller

"We are the Fury"
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
26,164
Reputation
-4,773
Daps
35,659
Reppin
NULL
This the face of your enemy gentlemen. The bedwench is a trojan horse. This is why i go so hard

Great analogy. Wenches are indeed "trojan horses". They look like friends but are truly enemies who mean to throw your people to the dogs. What happened to Troy?

this is your reward for supporting a bw with questionable motives. all of you that defended and sided with her deserve this slap in the face. enjoy and think twice the next time.
and any bw that supports her now is a c00n. thats a good litmus test.

You speak nothing but the truth here. This is my reward. I admit my mistake.

So, it's ok to date white women but go to war with white men? Because they're a different kind of white than white men.

I skimmed the first paragraph at best, so maybe I missed the point with the Aztecs. If you're justifying the black male opposite of what this chick is doing, like some are doing this thread and other threads, then that's fine.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy :yeshrug:

Peace

You should try reading my post this time before you post. Maybe then you'll actually see my point before you reply. :snoop:

With respects to black advancement, neither dating white men and women is OK-- likeNatives killing Native people and Spanairds killing Native people--are similarly not OK. But one is worse than the other, and actually has dire consequences, while the other is merely distasteful (again in analogy to the Natives' killing Natives and Spanairds' killing natives). Go back and READ and UNDERSTAND my actual point contained in my previous post and you'll understand which is which.

To wit, history shows us the Natives' choosing to focus on the Spanairds over other Natives, like the Aztecs', killing would indeed be hypocritical. The Natives agreed with you that it would indeed be hypocritical to focus on the Aztecs over Spanairds because the Aztecs murdered more Natives than the Spanairds did at the time. The various Native tribes during Cortez' time accordingly banded together against the Aztecs while ignoring the Spanairds'. History shows they were wrong to do so. The Aztecs' killers were not the true enemies. They had done their deeds for a thousand years and the Natives thrived as a group. After all, the Aztecs were Natives themselves, albeit misguided. History shows us it was the Spanairds whom were the true enemies.

Through abdicating to hypocrisy over logic and helping annihilate the greatest Native empire, the Aztecs, the rest of angry Native tribesopened the floodgates to the Spanairds, which led to the Natives' extinction. If only the Aztecs had continued their sacrifices and killings, as they had done for a thousand years hitherto, the Natives would still exist today in the same alarmingly high numbers did when the Aztecs' lived. As this example shows, not all killing and killers, like all c00nery and c00ns, are like and same. What is similar in kind is not necessarily the same in type. There are degrees and differences. Pity the Natives did not know it.
 
Last edited:

mcdivit85

Superstar
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
4,529
Reputation
3,660
Daps
18,340
Reppin
Sound Reasoning
:heh: You cats jump from one corny tactic to the next. Now you're tryna run "u mad" shyt. If it's so many names and threads then it should easy for your to be specific. You're not naming names because your only intent was to deflect/distract from the criticisms of Banks. You don't know if any such hypocrites exist(hence you asking me). The whole "yall do it too" shyt is just a bytchmade passive aggressive way of defending her.

No, I know they exist. AND SO DO YOU. Why do I need to prove something that is a running joke on this very site.

You came at me with a bullsh#t DEFLECTIONARY statement i.e. "name names chump." When the running joke on this site is about "Coli Milittants" talking about white supremacy in one sentence and chasing PAWGS in the next. So, miss me with the bullsh#t.

I'm not defending her. I've never made a thread about her and barely know who she is. I'm talking about an idea...you're talking about a person.

But YOU and others like you are upset because I made an observation....that she is NO DIFFERENT than some dudes on this site. Clown white supremacy and then lay up with white people. Dudes want to justify dating anything but black and then talk on some pro black sh#t....that's my point. Nothing else.

And since I hear you barking, one must assume that you may be a hit dog.

Peace
 

d'jarbargel

Rookie
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
76
Reputation
-90
Daps
45
If I were enamored with the daughters of my oppressor, that would not be so bad as being enamored with the oppressor himself. After all, was it the daughters of the oppressor that enslaved blacks and wiped out the Natives, Maoris, etc? No.

The Maoris weren't wiped out. There are a shytload of Maoris.

You wanna know who was wiped out? The Morioris. The Maoris committed genocide by fukkING EATING THEM.

In 1835 some displaced Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama people, Māori from the Taranaki region of the North Island of New Zealand, but living in Wellington, invaded the Chathams. On 19 November 1835, the brig Lord Rodney, a hijacked[12] European ship, arrived carrying 500 Māori armed with guns, clubs and axes, and loaded with 78 tonnes of seed potatoes, followed by another ship with 400 more Māori on 5 December 1835. While the second shipment of invaders were waiting, the invaders killed a 12-year-old girl and hung her flesh on posts.[13] They proceeded to enslave some Moriori and kill and cannibalise others. "Parties of warriors armed with muskets, clubs and tomahawks, led by their chiefs, walked through Moriori tribal territories and settlements without warning, permission or greeting. If the districts were wanted by the invaders, they curtly informed the inhabitants that their land had been taken and the Moriori living there were now vassals."[14]

A hui or council of Moriori elders was convened at the settlement called Te Awapatiki. Despite knowing of the Māori predilection for killing and eating the conquered, and despite the admonition by some of the elder chiefs that the principle of Nunuku was not appropriate now, two chiefs — Tapata and Torea — declared that "the law of Nunuku was not a strategy for survival, to be varied as conditions changed; it was a moral imperative."[15] A Moriori survivor recalled : "[The Maori] commenced to kill us like sheep.... [We] were terrified, fled to the bush, concealed ourselves in holes underground, and in any place to escape our enemies. It was of no avail; we were discovered and killed - men, women and children indiscriminately." A Māori conqueror explained, "We took possession... in accordance with our customs and we caught all the people. Not one escaped....." [16] The invaders ritually killed some 10% of the population, a ritual that included staking out women and children on the beach and leaving them to die in great pain over several days. The Māori invaders forbade the speaking of the Moriori language. They forced Moriori to desecrate their sacred sites by urinating and defecating on them.[17]

After the invasion, Moriori were forbidden to marry Moriori, or to have children with each other. All became slaves of the Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga invaders. Many Moriori women had children by their Māori masters. A small number of Moriori women eventually married either Māori or European men. Some were taken from the Chathams and never returned. In 1842 a small party of Māori and their Moriori slaves migrated to the subantarctic Auckland Islands, surviving for some 20 years on sealing and flax growing.[18] Only 101 Moriori out of a population of about 2,000 were left alive by 1862.[19] Although the last Moriori of unmixed ancestry, Tommy Solomon,[20] died in 1933, there are several thousand mixed ancestry Moriori alive today.


So obviously one must treat the oppressor differently than would be anything else. This is common sense.

So kill the Maoris? Or wait... shyt.. I forgot. Who is the oppressor, again?

Merely because something is similar in kind does not mean it is similar in type. The Natives made this mistake in classifying the killing by their own peoples as the same killing the Spanairds did.The Natives thought all killing was the same, like you think all c00nery is the same and women think sexism is the same as racism. History says the Natives were wrong, and they paid dearly for it (I will go into detail in the following paragraph).

No, you're right, when the Native Americans would capture their enemies and sacrifice them, that was MUCH worse than the Spaniards, who killed a few thousand natives.

Many, many millions of of Native Americans were killed by old world diseases, and never even saw a white person.

But besides that logic, the appropriate thing to do when one sees two wrongs is to stop the other wrong, not to ignore both and make excuses by saying, "Well you do the same thing'.

The Natives tried that. They used to war against each other and say, "Well the Aztecs kill Natives too, so why put anymore blame on the Spanairds?" And, strictly speaking, the other Native tribes who fought the Aztecs alongside the Spanairds, were right: the Aztecs did kill other Natives like the Spanairds did. But the Aztecs were Natives themselves and the Natives variously killed each for generations without any ill consequence. Warring between tribes is a natural part of human life. History proved it was the Spanairds--not the hegemonic Aztecs that murdered scores of Natives and sacrificed the rest to pagan gods--whose killing mattered. When the Aztecs fell, the Spanairds' greatest form of resistance fell with them and the latter went on to destroy every last Native in South America.

Most Natives who were killed never even saw a European.

You must be really impressed with the Spaniards' military prowess if you think they murdered millions of Indians.

And in any event, since Africans also carried Old World diseases, Africans are just as responsible for wiping out the natives as Spaniards were. LOL.

The Europeans did not focus on killing other Europeans--who killed more Europeans than any other group--over killing Natives. Why? Because the Europeans knew there was a difference between an Englishman killing a Spanaird and a Native killing both.

Right, Englishmen and Spaniards were both Christian. Killing a fellow Christian was frowned upon by the pope.
 
Last edited:
Top