Tariq Nasheed on Breakfast Club

[filial_piety]

Can a brother like you help me with breaking down what he said that was inaccurate so I can debate these Tariq stans on Twitter?

He went over a lot in the interview, it's about and hour or so with random questions and topics about a lot of different things with a lot of satire mixed into it.

But I'll say this--I think that his arguments tend too broad in the sense that he categorizes everything according to "race" as if everyone fits under the definition of a "stereotype" of how their race behaves or is suppose to behave. He constantly uses "whites" this, "blacks" that, "Asians" this and "Asians" that and too often will draw a false equivalency of today's issues with a historical context as his reference point.

For example....He and Charlemagne talked about financial literacy and having an economic base (and that's fine and dandy...I don't think anyone would argue against blacks financially empowering themselves and their communities) and then when the interviewer asks " well why don't we have one today?" and his response is "well...back in 1920...or back in 1960" as an explanation for it...meaning because that foundation was usurped nearly a 100 years ago by racists back then, the world is still virtually the same and therefore the same tactics would be employed today...something I just disagree with. Whenever he talks about issues today, his reference is always the worst atrocities that happened 50-100 years ago, and I just can't agree with it, because IMO that was simply a much more different world then what we have today...I'm sure plenty of people on here will disagree with that though, but that's how I see it.

He also tends to create a false equivalency of cross comparing various demographics. You can't compare Blacks to Asians, and [white] gays for example. They are much smaller, much more homogeneous groups of people who have a very recent appearance in today's political/economical landscape. Black people are MUCH more economically and politically diverse than either of those two groups. You can't expect black people to get on the same page and expect them to have the same "agenda" despite their historical and regional differences that have shaped them for more than a century. He continues to say "blacks have got to....fill in the blank" when it comes to having a collective economic base without realizing that the large poor/lower income black base would have a different "agenda" and/or needs separate from that of middle and working class one. In otherwords being "black" and experiencing "racism" in all it's forms will not erase the differences and needs between those various groups. But he constantly talks about blacks and whites as just some big mesh.

If you listened to Tariq you would think that there were only 5 people in the world...because he talks about each race and their relations to one another as if they were just a single person between each one.

I mean I could go on, but that doesn't discount the fact that some of what he says doesn't have a lot of truth in it and that he doesn't make a lot of good points, but overall I just tend to disagree with his points because the foundation of his arguments always seem to be on shaky grounds with me.

 

[Birnin Zana]

WAIT this shyt was real?

LOL, you thought Tariq was just joking?

Y'all gon learn...

 

[Birnin Zana]

Look, Tariq isn't perfect, but dude puts his money where his mouth is...

-Free podcast for almost 10 years now

-His books were low key ahead of their time.

-Three documentaries and one on the way.

-Put on a lot of black intellectuals.

-Created an video game app.

-About to create a social media platform.

-Actually donates to a lot of causes benefiting black people, both in the US and abroad.

-Calls out men AND women on their bullshyt when they fukk up.

-Paid for the funerals / medical bills / bail of various people championing the cause on the low, only for us to find out much later.

And so on.

I'm not saying dikk ride the guy or don't criticize him if he makes a mistake but dude is getting way too much push back and criticism considering how active and effective he actually has been. Then again, I'm not too surprised by it at this point.

 

[s3ven_LvLs]

He went over a lot in the interview, it's about and hour or so with random questions and topics about a lot of different things with a lot of satire mixed into it.

But I'll say this--I think that his arguments tend too broad in the sense that he categorizes everything according to "race" as if everyone fits under the definition of a "stereotype" of how their race behaves or is suppose to behave. He constantly uses "whites" this, "blacks" that, "Asians" this and "Asians" that and too often will draw a false equivalency of today's issues with a historical context as his reference point.

For example....He and Charlemagne talked about financial literacy and having an economic base (and that's fine and dandy...I don't think anyone would argue against blacks financially empowering themselves and their communities) and then when the interviewer asks " well why don't we have one today?" and his response is "well...back in 1920...or back in 1960" as an explanation for it...meaning because that foundation was usurped nearly a 100 years ago by racists back then, the world is still virtually the same and therefore the same tactics would be employed today...something I just disagree with. Whenever he talks about issues today, his reference is always the worst atrocities that happened 50-100 years ago, and I just can't agree with it, because IMO that was simply a much more different world then what we have today...I'm sure plenty of people on here will disagree with that though, but that's how I see it.

He also tends to create a false equivalency of cross comparing various demographics. You can't compare Blacks to Asians, and [white] gays for example. They are much smaller, much more homogeneous groups of people who have a very recent appearance in today's political/economical landscape. Black people are MUCH more economically and politically diverse than either of those two groups. You can't expect black people to get on the same page and expect them to have the same "agenda" despite their historical and regional differences that have shaped them for more than a century. He continues to say "blacks have got to....fill in the blank" when it comes to having a collective economic base without realizing that the large poor/lower income black base would have a different "agenda" and/or needs separate from that of middle and working class one. In otherwords being "black" and experiencing "racism" in all it's forms will not erase the differences and needs between those various groups. But he constantly talks about blacks and whites as just some big mesh.

If you listened to Tariq you would think that there were only 5 people in the world...because he talks about each race and their relations to one another as if they were just a single person between each one.

I mean I could go on, but that doesn't discount the fact that some of what he says doesn't have a lot of truth in it and that he doesn't make a lot of good points, but overall I just tend to disagree with his points because the foundation of his arguments always seem to be on shaky grounds with me.

Are saying that he should mention that black people are economically/politically diverse? How would that help bring black people together? By black people that means people of color that live in America that are descendants of the people who were enslaved AND are still today not to be considered part of the dominant society led by white supremacists.

The goal of his whole campaign is to alert black people who are affected by this system that is in place. I'm not sure as to why the "foundation of his arguments" seem to be on "shaky grounds". Please I would like a response to this.

 

[Ezigbo Nwanyi]

If you're gonna pay homage by citing someone else's work, that person should be credited and it should be cited accurately, Tariq started naming things that aren't even on the list of 9 areas of activity.

One of the major parts of Neely Fuller's code is called "stand by your work" and it addresses exactly what Tariq is doing here.

Hmm you went from the creating the phrase "inherent" to critiquing something that could easily be forgotten when on radio or national tv due to nerves. What has caused your recent heel turn. I noticed the way you posted a year ago has completely changed, agent-like behavior.

 

[Birnin Zana]

They can't teach what they don't know.

Also I don't understand people who get upset for the man trying to make some paper along the way. Its America the most capitalistic place in the history of mankind. He should be trying to make some money a long the way.

The reality is you simply have a lot of black folks who have a very negative perception of black people who aren't cosigned by the establishment / white people.

It's one thing if he took all that money and didn't do shyt with it. Instead, dude did a bunch of stuff with it over and over and over again and still has a lot of people hating about him making money along the way.

The big irony in all this? If Tariq was broke while saying everything he was saying, those same dudes would talk all types of shyt about him being broke. They wouldn't even take him seriously purely because he was broke.

 

[filial_piety]

Are saying that he should mention that black people are economically/politically diverse? How would that help bring black people together? By black people that means people of color that live in America that are descendants of the people who were enslaved AND are still today not to be considered part of the dominant society led by white supremacists.

The goal of his whole campaign is to alert black people who are affected by this system that is in place. I'm not sure as to why the "foundation of his arguments" seem to be on "shaky grounds". Please I would like a response to this.

How would it help to not acknowledge that black people are politically and economically diverse? Ignoring the needs of middle class blacks for poorer blacks (and vice versa) doesn't really help "black" people. The two groups generally have different agendas, goals, experiences etc. Someone who is black living in the hood, who is chronically unemployed, unskilled, with a prison record and with children isn't going to have too much in common with someone who is middle class, college educated, law abiding, married and employed (and that' s not intended to shyt on anyone poor--I'm just outlining polar opposites) just because the two of them are black. But that's not my point in its entirety...the other end of the problem is that he draws cross comparisons to other groups who are very new, much smaller and much more homogeneous.SO in otherwords, you can't look at Gays, and Asians and then say (collectively) why can't blacks do that too? Well the reason is obvious...blacks as a "collective" really aren't a "collective" group at all. They're far too diverse politically, economically and regionally.

How are they suppose to get on the same page and put together the same agenda just because they are both "black" ? For who, for what?
As far as the foundation of his arguments...well IMO they are generally based on a false narrative. If you build your argument on that--then everything after that is basically false in principle.

 

[Matt504]

Hmm you went from the creating the phrase "inherent" to critiquing something that could easily be forgotten when on radio or national tv due to nerves. What has caused your recent heel turn. I noticed the way you posted a year ago has completely changed, agent-like behavior.

First, I didn't create the "inherent" phrase, that was @Pifferry, second, I made a critique on a forum, I'm not discrediting any of the good things he's done.

 

[606onit]

I went to his Twitter page and he got up another gofundme why the hell are people donating money to that fool again.

people fund him because he dedicates himself to his craft. That's why Black people are idiots (in MASS, not all Im Black) cuz instead of just disagreeing and moving on, they have to make sure that the Blk person they disagree with doesnt propser>

 

[↓R↑LYB]

I went to his Twitter page and he got up another gofundme why the hell are people donating money to that fool again.

And nikkas are actually donating

 

[No Sleep]

How would it help to not acknowledge that black people are politically and economically diverse? Ignoring the needs of middle class blacks for poorer blacks (and vice versa) doesn't really help "black" people. The two groups generally have different agendas, goals, experiences etc. Someone who is black living in the hood, who is chronically unemployed, unskilled, with a prison record and with children isn't going to have too much in common with someone who is middle class, college educated, law abiding, married and employed (and that' s not intended to shyt on anyone poor--I'm just outlining polar opposites) just because the two of them are black. But that's not my point in its entirety...the other end of the problem is that he draws cross comparisons to other groups who are very new, much smaller and much more homogeneous.SO in otherwords, you can't look at Gays, and Asians and then say (collectively) why can't blacks do that too? Well the reason is obvious...blacks as a "collective" really aren't a "collective" group at all. They're far too diverse politically, economically and regionally.

How are they suppose to get on the same page and put together the same agenda just because they are both "black" ? For who, for what?
As far as the foundation of his arguments...well IMO they are generally based on a false narrative. If you build your argument on that--then everything after that is basically false in principle.

They come together to put money in the church collection plate.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

You fukking idiot I said that you said positive things about the interview. WTF...Reading comprehension isn't your strong point I see.

Yet still calling me a hate Tariq?How am I a Tariq hater??? Does that even make sense?

 

[talamak]

Yet still calling me a hate Tariq?How am I a Tariq hater??? Does that even make sense?

Most of these internet black revolutionaries like Tariq and especially Black Authority contradict themselves all the time. ESPECIALLY BA...

Tariq like his stans think like elementary kids.

@Poitier and @Nomad1 did this guy really have the nerve to compare Tariq to X and Dubois?????


Please tell me this guy is joking.

@ThreeLetterAgency

Stop spamming your slave master Tariq you stan. When you're actually voting for Hilary you hypocrite.

Seem like hate to me... All negative shyt for no reason.

 

[talamak]

He went over a lot in the interview, it's about and hour or so with random questions and topics about a lot of different things with a lot of satire mixed into it.

But I'll say this--I think that his arguments tend too broad in the sense that he categorizes everything according to "race" as if everyone fits under the definition of a "stereotype" of how their race behaves or is suppose to behave. He constantly uses "whites" this, "blacks" that, "Asians" this and "Asians" that and too often will draw a false equivalency of today's issues with a historical context as his reference point.

For example....He and Charlemagne talked about financial literacy and having an economic base (and that's fine and dandy...I don't think anyone would argue against blacks financially empowering themselves and their communities) and then when the interviewer asks " well why don't we have one today?" and his response is "well...back in 1920...or back in 1960" as an explanation for it...meaning because that foundation was usurped nearly a 100 years ago by racists back then, the world is still virtually the same and therefore the same tactics would be employed today...something I just disagree with. Whenever he talks about issues today, his reference is always the worst atrocities that happened 50-100 years ago, and I just can't agree with it, because IMO that was simply a much more different world then what we have today...I'm sure plenty of people on here will disagree with that though, but that's how I see it.

He also tends to create a false equivalency of cross comparing various demographics. You can't compare Blacks to Asians, and [white] gays for example. They are much smaller, much more homogeneous groups of people who have a very recent appearance in today's political/economical landscape. Black people are MUCH more economically and politically diverse than either of those two groups. You can't expect black people to get on the same page and expect them to have the same "agenda" despite their historical and regional differences that have shaped them for more than a century. He continues to say "blacks have got to....fill in the blank" when it comes to having a collective economic base without realizing that the large poor/lower income black base would have a different "agenda" and/or needs separate from that of middle and working class one. In otherwords being "black" and experiencing "racism" in all it's forms will not erase the differences and needs between those various groups. But he constantly talks about blacks and whites as just some big mesh.

If you listened to Tariq you would think that there were only 5 people in the world...because he talks about each race and their relations to one another as if they were just a single person between each one.

I mean I could go on, but that doesn't discount the fact that some of what he says doesn't have a lot of truth in it and that he doesn't make a lot of good points, but overall I just tend to disagree with his points because the foundation of his arguments always seem to be on shaky grounds with me.

Are you white? This is not help not a back down. Just a bunch of Blacks are different. Under the system of white supremacy sir we're all the same though.

Tariq says all the time some folks can't be saved. So all that lumping your doing is crazy. Tariq is trying to open up all black minds to think alike if some don't want to and what to stay under a system of white supremacy fukk'EM.

 

[Rollo Goodlove]

Tariq was just talking about how white people will call racism over a bunch of name calling.

Fukk iggy