"You Can't Date White Women and Be Pro Black", but I bet you'll smash Candace Owens though.

The Lonious Monk said:
How long they been together before they got married is irrelevant. She's not entitled to anything for that time. Like they could have been together for 20 years, if they weren't married she wouldn't have gotten shit. The marriage is the part that entitles her to compensation. And I didn't ask you if you think she deserved the settlement because I didn't care. If you remember, my first post was about you seeing that crazy settlement and instantly going at Hill. That's the problem. You saw something that you supposedly believe is unjust and chose to go at the victim.

I chose that example because it's something you've actually argued for. We've never had a discussion about some high level woman losing money. So no it's not odd. It's based on precedent of our discussions. When it's a woman being violated, you understand that blaming the victim shouldn't be your first reaction. When it's a man being violated, you have no problem beating up on him immediately. That was the point of the comparison. I don't see why that's so hard for you to comprehend. No one was saying that sexual harassment and financial fleecing are the same. I, for the life of me, can't understand how so many of ya'll got all the way through high school and don't understand how analogies work.
Click to expand...

I said him not stepping out on her might have helped his situation. That's all. You somehow took that and launched into a tirade about victim blaming. He actively played a part in how this played out. Thats not victim blaming. Thats pointing out the obvious.

And you could've used that as a way to open that discussion about high profile women and you would've gotten a similar response because those situations are comparable as they both involve finances . But you immediately went to sexual harrassment which is an entirely different subject. Again in each of my posts you can easily see me specifically mentioning finances. You took it beyond that to include physically violating somebody for a comparison and there's no scenario where im going to agree that somebody being physically violated is comparable to a divorce settlement whether it's a man or a woman. Its not a lack of understanding of analogies. You just used a very bad one and now can't admit you made a mistake with it. We talking a divorce settlement and you jumped out with "but you'd defend a woman being groped in the club" as if those are similar scenarios.
 
BlackRain said:
I said him not stepping out on her might have helped his situation. That's all. You somehow took that and launched into a tirade about victim blaming. He actively played a part in how this played out. Thats not victim blaming. Thats pointing out the obvious.

And you could've used that as a way to open that discussion about high profile women and you would've gotten a similar response because those situations are comparable as they both involve finances . But you immediately went to sexual harrassment which is an entirely different subject. Again in each of my posts you can easily see me specifically mentioning finances. You took it beyond that to include physically violating somebody for a comparison and there's no scenario where im going to agree that somebody being physically violated is comparable to a divorce settlement whether it's a man or a woman. Its not a lack of understanding of analogies. You just used a very bad one and now can't admit you made a mistake with it. We talking a divorce settlement and you jumped out with "but you'd defend a woman being groped in the club" as if those are similar scenarios.
Click to expand...

lol That is victim blaming. You're insinuating that him cheating is the reason he was fleeced. It's no different than someone saying "Her not having her ass out might have helped the situation." The fact that you can't see the parallels here is weird to me.

Again, I explained why I went with the sexual harassment angle. Analogies aren't meant to be the same exact scenario. If you could make the point going that route, you wouldn't need an analogy. The point of the analogy was to show how your reaction in this situation differed from past comparable situations. No, sexual harassment and financial fleecing are not the same thing. However, victims do exists in both situations and presumably should be treated as victims in both cases. However, with you, when it comes to women that have been harassed, you believe it is correct to treat them with kid gloves regardless of the circumstances leading up to the harassment and prioritize addressing the offending party. In this case, you had no words for the offending party, only a snide shot at the victim. That's the problem. Now if you refuse to acknowledge that you're being stupid in how you're taking the analogy, I can't help. Again, analogies are not meant to be direct comparisons between scenarios. Your objection is the equivalent of someone giving you the analogy of "seed is to tree as embryo is to adult" and you coming back and saying "that's a bad comparison because plants don't have sex." That's not the point of the analogy.
 
The Lonious Monk said:
lol That is victim blaming. You're insinuating that him cheating is the reason he was fleeced. It's no different than someone saying "Her not having her ass out might have helped the situation." The fact that you can't see the parallels here is weird to me.

Again, I explained why I went with the sexual harassment angle. Analogies aren't meant to be the same exact scenario. If you could make the point going that route, you wouldn't need an analogy. The point of the analogy was to show how your reaction in this situation differed from past comparable situations. No, sexual harassment and financial fleecing are not the same thing. However, victims do exists in both situations and presumably should be treated as victims in both cases. However, with you, when it comes to women that have been harassed, you believe it is correct to treat them with kid gloves regardless of the circumstances leading up to the harassment and prioritize addressing the offending party. In this case, you had no words for the offending party, only a snide shot at the victim. That's the problem. Now if you refuse to acknowledge that you're being stupid in how you're taking the analogy, I can't help. Again, analogies are not meant to be direct comparisons between scenarios. Your objection is the equivalent of someone giving you the analogy of "seed is to tree as embryo is to adult" and you coming back and saying "that's a bad comparison because plants don't have sex." That's not the point of the analogy.
Click to expand...

No. There's a line between victim blaming and personal accountability. You admit sexual harrassment and financial fleecing are not the same thing so even trying to draw a through line for comparison is already faulty by default based on your own words. The only similarity you are drawing is they're both victims but they're victims of 2 very different acts with 2 very different levels of consequences. And that is a huge difference you can't just ignore.

I'm talking finances and that's all I ever talked about. Trying to draw a line of comparison or analogy to sexual harrassment just doesn't work because you are taking it to a subject that was never mentioned at all. Again, there's no scenario you can present that I will agree that a person being physically violated can be analogous to a divorce settlement because they're not comparable. You can try and explain it all you want that still won't make me agree. It was a bad angle to take when you could've taken another easier route. When you introduce a situation that serious with completely different consequences then you're completely changing the scenario. The consequences for your analogy is a possible prison sentence. The consequences for a failed marriage is a divorce settlement. Those are not the same level of risks. You Drake'd this shit out with the "thats why I went with that angle" and it's not holding up
 
BlackRain said:
No. There's a line between victim blaming and personal accountability. You admit sexual harrassment and financial fleecing are not the same thing so even trying to draw a through line for comparison is already faulty by default based on your own words. The only similarity you are drawing is they're both victims but they're victims of 2 very different acts with 2 very different levels of consequences. And that is a huge difference you can't just ignore.
Click to expand...

Here is the point of disagreement. You're arbitrarily declaring that the acts are so different they can't be compared on any level, but you're not really giving a reason why they can't be compared. If you believe there is a reason why it's ok to tell a man that he shouldn't have cheated when the system treats him unjustly but not ok to tell a woman she has to be wise about what she wears when entering a sexually charged and alcohol laden environment, that's fine. You haven't actually given that reason though. You just keep saying the two situations are different.

My contention is that in either case, the victim shouldn't be blamed for the wrongdoing of the offender. Yes, Hill was stupid to cheat with so much on the line, but that doesn't make it right for the court to go crazy on the settlement. The same line of argument works for the chick in her scenario. She is probably not using good judgement to go around a bunch of drunk niggas dressed crazy if she doesn't want that kinda attention, however, her being dressed that way doesn't make it ok for a guy to touch her without her permission. See how that works. The comparison is not between financial fleecing and sexual harassment. The comparison is between how we treat victims. It works perfectly fine from my viewpoint, because I'm consistent in my beliefs.
 
The Lonious Monk said:
Here is the point of disagreement. You're arbitrarily declaring that the acts are so different they can't be compared on any level, but you're not really giving a reason why they can't be compared. If you believe there is a reason why it's ok to tell a man that he shouldn't have cheated when the system treats him unjustly but not ok to tell a woman she has to be wise about what she wears when entering a sexually charged and alcohol laden environment, that's fine. You haven't actually given that reason though. You just keep saying the two situations are different.

My contention is that in either case, the victim shouldn't be blamed for the wrongdoing of the offender. Yes, Hill was stupid to cheat with so much on the line, but that doesn't make it right for the court to go crazy on the settlement. The same line of argument works for the chick in her scenario. She is probably not using good judgement to go around a bunch of drunk niggas dressed crazy if she doesn't want that kinda attention, however, her being dressed that way doesn't make it ok for a guy to touch her without her permission. See how that works. The comparison is not between financial fleecing and sexual harassment. The comparison is between how we treat victims. It works perfectly fine from my viewpoint, because I'm consistent in my beliefs.
Click to expand...

You directly quoted the part of my post where I stated why the 2 aren't comparable in my pov. So either you're simply not reading my posts and you wanted a reason to go off on a "you never feel sorry for men" rant or you're just so dug in that you can't just say "I could've used a better example to make the point". You're trying to remove the financial aspect of it when I've said repeatedly that was where my focus was. When you actively participate in a situation that leads to you losing money then there's not gonna be much empathy on my part regardless if i think it's fair or not. It's that simple.

The victims are treated differently because there's effects of the offense are vastly different between touching a person without consent vs losing money. You seem to think and have already said as such that you don't think a woman being touched without her consent is as bad as losing millions of dollars. I don't agree with that. That in no way has anything to do with my thoughts on divorce or how the system treats people with money when their marriages don't work out. Those are 2 entirely different topics.
 
BlackRain said:
You directly quoted the part of my post where I stated why the 2 aren't comparable in my pov. So either you're simply not reading my posts and you wanted a reason to go off on a "you never feel sorry for men" rant or you're just so dug in that you can't just say "I could've used a better example to make the point". You're trying to remove the financial aspect of it when I've said repeatedly that was where my focus was. When you actively participate in a situation that leads to you losing money then there's not gonna be much empathy on my part regardless if i think it's fair or not. It's that simple.

The victims are treated differently because there's effects of the offense are vastly different between touching a person without consent vs losing money. You seem to think and have already said as such that you don't think a woman being touched without her consent is as bad as losing millions of dollars. I don't agree with that. That in no way has anything to do with my thoughts on divorce or how the system treats people with money when their marriages don't work out. Those are 2 entirely different topics.
Click to expand...

I don't care whether you feel sorry for men or not. I've just noted that you have a problem seeing dudes as victims when women are involved. Again, you arbitrarily saying the two scenarios aren't comparable doesn't mean anything because for the 100th time, direct comparisons are not the point of analogies. You could have just said the bold a long time ago. You're not stupid. You know how analogies work, so the analogy was never the problem. The issue is you don't have sympathy for a cheating man, and you could have just said that.

On a side note, I really don't see how you can say a chick having her ass grabbed at the club is worse than this settlement. Both scenarios are bad, but one is a one-time incident that may never happen again. The other is a big upfront violation followed by a continued violation with no foreseeable end. The latter is clearly worse.
 
The Lonious Monk said:
I don't care whether you feel sorry for men or not. I've just noted that you have a problem seeing dudes as victims when women are involved. Again, you arbitrarily saying the two scenarios aren't comparable doesn't mean anything because for the 100th time, direct comparisons are not the point of analogies. You could have just said the bold a long time ago. You're not stupid. You know how analogies work, so the analogy was never the problem. The issue is you don't have sympathy for a cheating man, and you could have just said that.

On a side note, I really don't see how you can say a chick having her ass grabbed at the club is worse than this settlement. Both scenarios are bad, but one is a one-time incident that may never happen again. The other is a big upfront violation followed by a continued violation with no foreseeable end. The latter is clearly worse.
Click to expand...

The bold is you projecting an assumption. You could just ask but you based your entire reaction to a one sentence response off your own assumption. Nothing in my post expressed any empathy at all for that woman. Would it make you feel better if I called her a gold digging hoe? I'm not pressed to say anything. You seem to be pressed to see someone talk down on her feel sympathy for somebody that showed none for themselves in Tyreek Hill. You care about that man's finances more than he does. If he did then maybe he would've handled himself better. I don't have sympathy for adults, and that includes women since you can't seem to decipher that, who knowingly put themselves in situations where they can financially be hurt like that. He knew the risks everytime he stepped out on that woman and didn't think those possible consequences were enough to stop him. So he gets the results he knew were a possibility.
Click to expand...

I did. And also multiple other iterations of the bold as well. I don't have empathy for a cheating person in general whether a man or woman and you will never find any posts of me defending it. It just happens to be a man in this case. And I already said I disagree with the analogy because i disagree with the premise of it. All the things you're claiming I didn't say are plain as day. You just wanted to use this as a proxy to get your shit off about your opinion of me never seeing men as victims when women are involved. Which is also false.

To your side note. You're entitled to that opinion. And im entitled to think that's stupid.
 
Mr BFK said:
but nothing about the woman being a shark for his pockets tho right? :icu:


u acting like there aren't "wives" out here that aint gunning for a dudes pockets even if he is the faithful perfect husband


no court system should be sanctioning financial extortion like that regardless of gender 🙁
Click to expand...

Nigga is a whole male feminist to the core lol.

Never seen him hold a woman accountable without putting the man down first lol.
 
Yall go learn lol

Niggas switch up in every thread on here. Lol. Yall go learn about these niggas. I see folks are seeing the play with certain posters, I aint gotta to @ them cuz they know who they are. I'm proud that folks are calling out the bullshit lol

Love it mane
 
Knock_Twice said:
Nigga is a whole male feminist to the core lol.

Never seen him hold a woman accountable without putting the man down first lol.
Click to expand...
😂 @ niggaz being ready to finally kick @BlackRain out of the NO MA'AM meetings



mofos in here ain't putting up with his pro woman BS no more


07b6ed86-2244-49fa-83dc-5d315e2719bb_screenshot.jpg
 
BMDC said:
Very few BW/WW in history have I tolerated on the level of Nick and his wife. A rare anomaly
Click to expand...

Why? Nick isn't even racially conscious. Look at what he said about Shedeur after he dropped.

And what did she see in him 15 years ago? Not like he's an attractive dude. Are you sure that her decision to get with him isn't tainted?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top