Ronnie Lott
#49erGang
They use to date for awhile. Rob Parker introduced them to each other.
They never dated fam. Stop speeding fake news
Breaking News : Jemele Hill suspended
- Thread starter El Poyo Loco
- Start date
They never dated fam. Stop speeding fake news
Roman Brady
Nobody Lives Forever
It's harder to spot a shuck and jiver in democrats cuz the modern day party's views and stances on many issues often align with minorities. I agree on gay activists though
GetInTheTruck
Member
Roland Coltrane
Superstar
for all you fukkboy apologists for Damon Young and Very Smart Brothas....
here's an excellent rebuttal that refutes all his points and exposes the logical fallacies
here's an excellent rebuttal that refutes all his points and exposes the logical fallacies
Posted on September 27, 2017
“Straight Black Men Are the Scapegoats of Black People: VSB’s Black Eugenics Renaissance and the Pandering to Make Attention Outweigh Death” by T. Hasan Johnson, Ph.D.*
“We have to be distrustful of the ideology and the people in the class position that’re trying to serve as the spokespeople for a race that tries to socialize everyone else into their ideology. So when these women are speaking, they’re speaking from a positionality of privilege and… White supremacist backing. Because there’s no way that so many with degrees in English should somehow be in the limelight as commentators, spokespersons for the race, and policy analysts. This is a deliberate organization of Black people, especially in the last two decades, where public intellectualism has become overwhelmingly conservative, hell-bent on propagating White liberalism, and fundamentally tied to the denigration and rationalization of the mass incarceration system and the demonization of Black men that takes Black men out of communities and out of homes.”1
When my only-child son was a toddler, I put him in a daycare run by a Black feminist. He has always been in the 99th percentile for height and weight. Anyway, it quickly got to the point where she would have complaints about him every day, and as one of the few male children there I was always confused at her treatment of him (it was always sort of linked to a benign disdain). The final day he was there I came to get him and she said he had hit a girl who took his toy away. She was angry, self-righteously so, and decided that he was too much of a problem. The last thing she said was, “how dare he hit her—SHE’S ONLY TWO YEARS OLD!” I was stunned. We painstakingly looked for a daycare run by Black folks and I didn’t expect a gender issue… I gathered his stuff, gently picked him up, kissed him and said to her, “Ma’am, HE is also only 2 years old.”
RaKhem & Mommy
Why mention this now? What does this have to do with anything? Well, this was the first thought I had when reflecting on how Black feminists (female or male) see Black males. Despite that he is essentially no different than the other kids (except that he was one of very few males there), her approach was to attack him by expelling him rather than appreciate that he was, too, only 2 and was acting his age. You can see this menacing individual at work above.
If you’ve read this blog before you know I am critical of Black feminists-nationalists, a small group that attempts to galvanize Black women via Black male denigration. This group attempts to claim they represent Black women’s interests despite that most Black women do not identify with their ideology. Their style of argumentation is usually not to confront people directly, but to dismiss them in tertiary conversations over social media and use attitude, sass, and dismissive gestures & hashtags (e.g. #BoyBie and #MasculinitySoFragile) over facts or peer-reviewed data. Let’s stay clear: they are on a mission to legitimize themselves as a political demographic. By stereotyping Black men as monsters, they can better define themselves as more humane.
Their latest salvo in their fabricated war against Black men is via ‘Very Smart Brothas’ from TheRoot.com’s Damon Young. His latest “essay” entitled, “Straight Black Men Are the White People of Black People,” is an open assault on hetero Black males. Somehow, he divides gay and straight Black men, despite that Black men tend to be treated (and socialized) similarly as far as being Black men in a racist society. Meaning most Black men are still men, and their masculinities are often overlooked (for better or for worse) when they are assessed. Here, the assumption that gay Black men laud femininity is what makes gay masculinities acceptable. In other words, the only thing that makes gay Black men acceptable to feminists in contrast to hetero Black men is their supposed willingness to counter hypermasculinity with performances of “feminine-influenced” masculinities. It’s a narcissistically sanctioned femininity that complements Black feminists where gay Black men are considered honorable Black women, while simultaneously ignoring how these men are still men and subject to the vulnerabilities that Black men suffer from. Yet ironically, there is not a data-set that I’ve found that delineates between Black gay and straight men as far as their progressivism or enlightened sense of gender roles.
Still, the core of this debate is about attention, and Black gender intellectuals are overlooking actual deaths and oppressions for public attention (despite that what attention Black men have received hasn’t yielded Black men any tangible benefits), doing so by ad hominem arguments despite the low-level war against Black men. Essentially, Young is arguing that because Black men aspire to be White (read as patriarchy/privilege), oppress Black women, and enjoy privilege that Black women do not. First, there’s no empirical metric that highlights this supposed privilege. If you look at another post by Young entitled, “Types of Black Privilege, Ranked” (September 21, 2017), Young posits a list of supposed “privileges” that Black folk have. As expected, many are targeted toward Black men. “Privileges” such as:
In other words, “privilege” for Black men seems to be tied to aesthetics (hair, height, etc.). Although written to be humorous, it nonetheless affirms ludicrous arguments sans facts and popularizes slanderous terms such as ‘Black male privilege.’ To his main points in his “Straight Black Men Are the White People of Black People,” he provides no evidence that Black men aspire to be patriarchs—he just assumes it despite acknowledging that,
- “Just got a fresh shape-up yesterday and everyone’s treating you like you’re a half-inch taller than you actually are privilege”
- “Nice and unreceded hairline after 30 privilege”
- “Tall-ass dude privilege”2
“In America, we are near or at the bottom in every relevant metric determining quality of life. Our arrest and incarceration rates, our likelihood of dying a violent death, our likelihood of graduating high school and attending college, our employment rates, our average net worth, our likelihood of surviving past 70—I could continue, but the point is clear.”3
He immediately argues that those numbers pale in comparison to the plight of Black women. He states, “Intraracially, however, our relationship to and with black women is not unlike whiteness’s relationship to us.” This is a slick and yet disingenuous statement because it’s factually untrue. On the majority of metrics we as a society claim to value, Black men find themselves worse off than Black women. From health to home-ownership, violence to rape, education to incarceration, income to voting capacity, or employment to murder, Black men are routinely victims more so than oppressors—even when compared to Black women.
10 Leading Causes of Death for Black Females in the US, 1999-2014
If you study the leading causes of death for African American men and women, we find that Black men die at higher rates from in-utero to 75+ years old. They die much earlier and far more often until the age of 75. In essence, it could be argued that we die to exhaustion prior to 75, then Black women die of conditions and diseases that are statistically age-related.
10 Leading Causes of Death for Black Males in the US, 1999-2014
But why say these things? Is it to denigrate Black women? No. Is it to suggest that they don’t suffer from oppression? Hell no. It is to argue that if our issue was solely about race then the data on Black disparity would be gender-balanced, but since its demonstrably tipped to (poor) Black men’s detriment it would seem the race/gender/class intersection is important, just not in the way intersectional feminists suggest.
Paradigmatically speaking, in order for Black men to be the “White men” of anything, they’d have to share the power dynamic White men have in relation to others. They don’t, especially not with Black women nor with Black LGBTs. And no, “privileged victim” status is. not. a. damn. thing. Meaning if having attention on our plights (e.g. incarceration) meant anything intrinsically valuable then Black men would have lowered incarceration rates, empirically provable privileges, and be verifiably better off than others. Yet for some reason there’s no discernible societal empathy that has translated into widespread opportunity for Black males of any age. Here, not even Young can frame a cogent argument for Black male privilege without sounding ridiculous.
Dr. Tommy J. Curry on Yvette Carnell’s Breaking Brown
Thankfully, people such as Dr. Tommy J. Curry, Yvette Carnell, and Antonio Moore tackled this issue with integrity. Moore, calling in after the bulk of Curry’s interview, brilliantly asserts how Young, a graduate of an obscure college with a degree in English, should not be qualified to speak about issues focusing on Black identity and quality of life. Carnell comments on how she’s being attacked based on her defense of Black men using the data, while Curry describes how this dynamic came to be. He also mentions some other key facts. Too many to name here, two that stuck out to me were his argument about Intimate Partner Violence in Black communities. Routinely blamed on Black men, reports show that Black women have historically been as violent (at times more so) than Black men (see Carolyn M. West’s “A Thin Line Between Love and Hate”? Black Men as Victims and Perpetrators of Dating Violence” in the Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, p. 240-243). He further argues that violence in Black communities is not affected by large-scale Black male incarceration. That said, violence in Black households continues, even without Black men. This suggests that again, Black men are not boogeymen despite how Black men’s incarceration does not change the amount of violence in Black homes.
Another point mentioned by Curry is that only 9% of all bachelor’s degrees have been obtained by Black women (about 21% of Black women have college degrees), suggesting that those who espouse such divisive Black feminist-nationalist ideas are actually in the minority. The majority of Black women—instead—live a reality with Black men, and do not exhaust their energy extolling Black feminism. That said, it mirrors this blog in that my work is not about disparaging Black women, but rather it’s about contrasting misandrist stereotyping of Black men with data, perspective, and accurate information.
Young’s article highlights the importance of accuracy. He and “Dr. Kristian H,” an “assistant teaching professor (adjunct instructor) in the Department of Health Policy and Management at George Washington University,” misreads statistics by avoiding intra-racial comparative gender analyses and doubles-down on Young’s arguments by asserting the truthfulness of Black male privilege because, well, Black men argue back against the concept by using similar arguments as Whites use to deny racism.4 (Ooookaaayyy…) Anyway, she continues by saying, “Black men have historically only had power over Black women, so you’ve made us suffer to help ease your pain. You have disrespected us, you have degraded us, you have silenced us,” but fails to define what this power Black men have had and how it functions. She doesn’t even bother to prove it exists. She also mentions the oft-claimed “street harassment” and a “string of deaths in DC.” Here, Black men are supposed to be irrevocably responsible for oppressing Black women simply because she merely asserts it as some sort of truth based on…well…uummm…well just because she says so dammit! And that’s supposed to be enough. She says, “And they [Black men] are doing it [oppressing Black women] when they refuse to acknowledge the role they have played in creating a system that disregards Black women.” One question, what system? What system have Black men ever created that oppresses Black women? Short answer, there isn’t one. “Dr. H” is an example of the opening quote by Curry on Carnell’s show. Her type of critique is exemplary of the type of work that agent provocateurs perform: deflect and mislabel. Of all the deaths and oppressions that Black folk face, she asks that Black men be responsible for nebulous “crimes” against Black women that lack substance or validity. And if Black men protest they’re like White men. The only acceptable option? Sit quietly and accept her statement as true without response. (Sigh)
Roland Coltrane
Superstar
there's more 
She does offer some stats however. She states, “According to a 2017 CDC report, Black women are four times more likely to be murdered than white women. Homicides are the second leading cause of death and over 50 percent of female homicides are committed by intimate partners.” The 2017 report analyzes data from 2003-2014, but data only as it relates to female victims.5 The above charts are also compiled by the CDC, but encompass dates from 1999-2014. And although you can see that homicide rates of Black women are high, they pale in comparison to the numbers of Black males killed by homicide. For Black males, “homicide” is the 5th cause of death across all ages, with 109,467 killed. Homicide is not even in the top 10 causes of death for Black women, as only 14,839 died in the 15-year period.
As for the 124,306+ Black people (male and female) killed via homicide in that same period, the actual numbers of people killed by IPH are already quite minuscule, as Black women’s deaths have dropped demonstrably since the 1970s. Still, as evidenced in the interview with Carnell where she cites from the chatroom, Black feminists charge Black men with committing genocide (the term used was “en masse”) against Black women. To clarify this myth, out of approximately 23.5 million Black females in America (and 21.5 million Black males), the following illustrates the numbers killed according to the Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC.
· 2003 (71 Black female victims; 24 Black Male Victims)
· 2004 (124 Black female victims; 43 Black Male Victims)
· 2005 (116 Black female victims; 55 Black Male Victims)
· 2006 (123 Black female victims; 61 Black Male Victims)
· 2007 (129 Black female victims; 55 Black Male Victims)
· 2008 (110 Black female victims; 36 Black Male Victims)
· 2009 (84 Black female victims; 34 Black Male Victims)
· 2010 (93 Black female victims; 39 Black Male Victims)
· 2011 (92 Black female victims; 56 Black Male Victims)
· 2012 (103 Black female victims; 49 Black Male Victims)
· 2013 (105 Black female victims; 44 Black Male Victims)
2014, National Violent Death Reporting System (Participating States)6
Keep in mind that women are far more likely to use proxy violence than men, drafting family, boyfriends (especially poorer women), or assassins (wealthier women) (See Ferrell, 2001). What would it do to the numbers above if we could include such numbers killed in IPH data? (Keep in mind, even if these female-proxy killers are caught, they don’t add to women’s rates of initiating IPH. Instead, they just add to the numbers of homicide).
As Curry argues in his interview with Carnell, the risk of being killed by a spouse in the Black community is about the same whether initiated by Black males or Black females since at least the 1970s. In fact, from 1976-1985, Black men were more likely than Black women to be a victim of domestic homicide.7 Most victims, approximately 93% of Black victims, were victimized by Black offenders.”8 This goes for men and women. Violence, in fact, is bi-directional and nigh equal and many studies. Shaped by poverty, drugs, alcohol, etc., violence is statistically more significant in poor areas, and diminishes dramatically when income improves. That said, poor Black people’s intimate partner homicide deaths aren’t significantly different. Hence,
“Gautier and Bankston (2004) found that of those homicides that contribute to the SROK, the SROK for Whites was 30, and for Blacks was 92. In other words, for intimate partner homicide occurrences in White couples the female was the offender in 30 instances for every 100 male instances, and in Black couples the female was the offender in 92 instances for every 100 male perpetrated occurrences.”9
In fact, according to the Intimate Partner Violence in the African American Community fact sheet:
The victimization of Black men goes without saying, and is immediately scoffed at by social media pundits and feminists alike. Yet there are quite a few data-sets that outline the victimization of Black men in intimate relationships is not statistically much different than that of Black women, that Black men are actually as progressive—and at times more so—than Black women on most major data indices. They are more susceptible to receiving lower education, being incarcerated more, suffer death from more issues at much greater numbers, and routinely find themselves criminalized by society despite that economic conditions explain their context.
- From 1994 to 2011, the rate of serious intimate partner violence declined 72% for females and 64% for males.
- In 2002–11, a larger percentage of male (27%) than female (18%) intimate partner victimizations involved a weapon.
- In 2002–11, 5% of females and 19% of males were hit by an object their intimate partner held or threw at them.
- In 2002–11, about 18% of female and 27% of male intimate partner violence victimizations involved an offender with a weapon.
- A larger percentage of males experienced serious violence when victimized by an intimate (39%) than by a non-intimate partner (32%).
- A larger percentage of males were physically attacked when victimized by an intimate partner (65%) than by a non-intimate partner offender (40%).
- A larger percentage of males were threatened prior to victimization by an non-intimate partner (39%) than a intimate (31%).
- A larger percentage of males were injured when the offender was an intimate (44%) than a non-intimate partner (22%).
- A similar percentage of males sought treatment for injuries when victimized by an intimate (11%) or a non-intimate partner (10%).
- From 1976-1985, Black men were more likely than Black women to be a victim of domestic homicide.10
One such example is also pointed out by Young when he states, “We are the ones who get the biggest seat at the table and the biggest piece of chicken at the table despite making the smallest contribution to the meal.” This incendiary statement, meant to sound funny, is actually a talking point of feminists. In fact, one came to Fresno State in the spring of 2017 and argued the relevance of this point in her presentation to explain and prove (definitively) the existence of Black patriarchy.
The historical context of such overblown myths is rooted in a practical reality. From Reconstruction to today, Black men work more in blue collar–physically laborious–professions. Black women’s labor is far more white collar in orientation such as in management, service, and office-related occupations while Black men generally work more blue collar labor such as construction, maintenance, production, transportation, and moving occupations.
As can be seen in the images on Black female and male occupations, the difference in service labor between them is minuscule, while in other areas it’s quite noticeable.
The point here is that Black men have been known to perform more physical labor, thus requiring different size food portions. Still, beyond the reality of that misinterpreted trope, Young argues that Black men make the least contribution to the meal. Ambiguous as to what he fully meant, the implication is that whether on financial or food preparation terms, Black men make no contribution worthy of acknowledgement. Such a gross generalization is somehow acceptable, if not lauded by Black feminist-nationalists. Yet when assessed, Black men tend to be the most progressive in terms of rearing children when compared to men of other races, while also supporting progressive roles for women more so than many Black women!11 That said, in the proverbial meal Young refers to? The progressive Black men from data-sets such as these likely either helped cooked the meal or did comparable “men’s work” around the house.
The 18th century eugenics renaissance is alive and well in Black feminist articulations of post-1970s Black masculinity. From re-enlivened stereotypes to outright hatred (some even consider Black men terrorists), perspectives on Black men are strangely reminiscent of how 18th century White ethnographers defined Black men as weak, childish, incapable, unintelligent, hyper-criminal, hyper-violent, hyper-masculine, rapist abusers. (The significance of this can’t be understated. Black women calling Black men terrorists would be like Jewish women calling Jewish men Nazis. Have we seen any significant amount of this with Jews? If you have please show me. Don’t worry I’ll wait.) Framed between scientists and White women’s accusations of rape, White America was clear that Black men were the scapegoats best used for rationalizing the brutality exhibited toward Black men. Put differently, slavery became necessary for controlling Black men’s potential rage, sexual drives, familial abandonment tendencies, and criminal characteristics. White-funded Black feminist-nationalism are at best what attorney/economist Antonio Moore calls “couture activists” (1:04 min) in that they protest at a Black Lives Matter rally on Monday and denigrate Black males by co-signing articles such as Young’s on Wednesday. At worst they are COINTELPRO-esque figures whose task it is to undermine Black sex relational dynamics and disrupt the political efficacy of Black men and women working together modeled during past political movements from Reconstruction to Civil Rights.
Approximately at 47 minutes into the interview with Carnell and Curry, Carnell makes a brilliant observation. She talks about how Black men became the scapegoats for Black women’s angst but the socio-political context that shapes Black reality is often overlooked entirely–unless it’s used to defend Black women’s behavior or life choices, leaving Black men wholly responsible for Black women’s oppression. Fruitful discussions such as this in response to superficial faux-intellectualism (e.g. Young and Dr. H) is the basis for the need for Black Male Studies. Black males need to finally be absolved of 18th century eugenics-myths and be studied using data that forces us to move past myths, stereotypes, and anecdotes people say they heard from a friend of a friend (Lord help me!).
Last edited:
Roland Coltrane
Superstar
fukk Damon Young 
15 Million Merits: Why Damon Young of Very Smart Brothas is the next Jayson Blair
Unfortunately, people who become career online contributors based on page views and clickbait burn out and fall fast. It’s because online content contributors have to create an external virtual persona and keep that persona going and feed that persona to an audience neither loyal or quality. Damon Young from Very Smart Brothas is such a person in this scenario already showing the cracks of implosion others like him fell victim to.
Unlike real journalism where real newsroom journalists thrive off the work of researching facts, gathering leads and contacts and pull together a story that was researched and uncover breaking news or provide live action feed in the middle of the story, online content contributors pretty much sit behind a desk and forced to create something based on the persona they have been told to broadcast to a clickbait audience that crave for fake news and silliness.
Over time and I been around long enough, the fake persona does not hold up to the test of time and the online content person who was behind the virtual persona crash and burn. Many online contributors commit outright suicide and there have been more than enough high-profile cases.
Jayson Blair was a mediocre black journalist who was obviously a fake and mediocre but was recruited by the New York Times as a model minority, kinda like how Silicon Valley doing Tristan Walker.
Being placed in a high level of position, Jayson Blair was assigned to cover some national stories and what happened next is the Peter Principle of when token black people that white people like are actually forced to do real work — he lied and fabricated everything. He claimed to visit places he never visited in his New York Times published stories, he made up facts that were simply not true, he even outright plagiarized stories from other writers and claimed it as his own in the New York Times. But it caught up to Jayson Blair and he was forced to resign.
Wikipedia made the following mention of Jayson Blair after he went down from his fake career fiasco: After resigning from The New York Times, Blair struggled with severe depression and, according to his memoir, entered a hospital for treatment. He was diagnosed with bipolar disorder for the first time. He has acknowledged that he had been self-medicating when he was dealing with substance abuse of alcohol and cocaine in earlier years.
The best way to describe Damon Young of Very Smart Brothas is to look at Black Mirror episode titled “15 Million Merits” on Netflix. In that episode, we saw a black man that worked hard to build up points or merits to get in front of a mainstream audience only to force them to look at him express his rage towards the man.
In a twist, the audience found the black man holding a glass shard to his neck yelling about what is wrong with the man funny and entertaining and awarded the black guy with a gig to produce shows where he holds the glass shard to his neck and rage about how the man is wrong, making the mainstream audience laugh. This is exactly who Damon Young is as he goes about his racist “Dear White People” rants day in and day out on his Gizmodo channel.
But this is not Netflix or TV; this is real life and Damon Young has to keep entertaining his “Dear White People” routine to keep up with whatever lifestyle he is maintaining now. It appears that Damon Young who want to believe he is serving the interest of African-Americans is actually entertaining a segment of white privilege who like to chuckle at the black racist rants Damon Young makes as a subservient with a victim-mentality supported by an audience of low-quality commentariat African-Americans who hide behind anonymous identities to also spew their black racist hatred of white people.
Futhermore, if the “angry” black guy opens his neck with the glass shard after driving himself crazy, that is exactly what the white privilege audience want to see the black guy end up doing.
Damon Young is stuck in that “Dear White People” loop and has to keep providing content to feed the virtual persona of an angry pseudo-intellectual, ineffectual black man who has to cry his rage out about “whiteness” for a Univision corporate paycheck.
At some point and this happen to more than enough black nationalists and black feminists who blog, they end up in a deep depression or commit suicide due to being severely burned out from feeding the virtual persona of an angry black person online. Other bloggers as far away from Asia to Europe and here in America also end up in deep depression and commit suicide as well because they lose their soul to entertain a virtual persona online.
These online content contributors walk around in the real world not knowing who they really are anymore versus the virtual character they have to go entertain like a Digamon Pet they cannot neglect because that virtual character is in some ways an extension of themselves.
Damon Young is not a newspaper columnist, he is a piece of virtue signaling garbage we straight black men have to feel empathy for because Damon Young is obviously stuck. The whole Very Smart Brothas blog paradigm makes you wonder about the online contributor career where a person like Damon Young has to put on a virtual act and have to come up with the next attention-grabbing thing to say and how far they will go next.
Have the journalism community looked at this phenomenon where pseudo-columnists on online-only publications have to appeal to click views and “viralbility” whereas real columnists like a Thomas Friedman or David Frum or Nicholas Kristof can present their true personal views and content contributions unabated?
Let’s just call this what it is — Damon Young is going to crash and burn when the Peter Principle kicks in, that’s 100% guaranteed going to happen. Univision, the Root or whoever at Very Smart Brothas are going to pretend they have no culpability but they putting Damon Young in a position where he has to keep writing these “Dear White People” rants and not elevate himself into a new path and direction.
Damon Young is now reduced to writing black male-bashing gay-agenda articles attacking straight black males to appeal to crazy black women to get page views stats to justify his stature with Univision. It may be a possibility Univision or the Root wants Damon Young to be that character with the glass shard to his neck as long as they think he is entertaining a white privilege audience who like to read the works of a crybaby liberal who talks about “whiteness” all the time instead of his personal journey of empowerment and elevation.
Maybe Damon Young might want to be that very smart brotha he claims to be and realize he is trapped by a virtual Very Smart Brothas persona and change course to reset his whole fukking world around him to be a reinvented version of the real Damon Young with a new direction and outlook. Let’s hope Damon Young realize this before it’s too late.
666 ReVeNGe 666
TROLL IS LIFE
Damn..so issa wrap for her on espn?
#BlackLivesMatter leading us to nowhere
Go to your job and tell customers not to buy your product
Let me know how it works out for you
You Win Perfect
bow down
she's not defending shyt about straight black men. that traitor can kick rocks. cosigning that disgusting article took the cake. she wanna try to play both sides whenever its convenient or whatever gets her more attention.
So publicly supporting the NFL nikkaz protesting isn't defending them?
So you on the side of the bigots, MAGA clowns, KKK, and other racist cats who want to see her burn?
And for the record, I don't condone her giving attention to that bullshyt article either. I'm not one of the types of nikkaz who were being talked about in that shyt, so it's whatever with that shyt. Yall harder on her than the fakkit who wrote that trash.
Black men have a 500 hundred year history of enslaving black women, taking them from their home countries, forcing them to abandon their culture, denying them civil rights, and exploiting their contributions to society while simultaneously denying said contributions?
You know what Im just gonna give @BmoreGorilla the CAC ALERT signal on you and call it a day
@NoHateLeftBehind can you post the links to the articles you're posting?
Everythingg
King-Over-Kingz
If you're down for the cause breh, cool. But get down wit those who are also down. Dont get down wit those who one day are pro black, then the next day shes saying similar things to white supremacists. Based off that, and the fact that she literally retweeted the article days after black men across America went to bat for her, is why she deserves whatever vitriol she gets from those she offended. Pick a side. Dont play both sides.
And
breh. I step outside and Im black. While the lgbtq is simply based off behavior. Theres real no similarity other than those in power trying to connect being black to degeneracy. Being black shouldnt be in the same list as people who are homosexuals, pedophiles, transgenders etc...