Post: #151

The Rationalization is very strong in this thread

Post: #152

(08-29-2016 10:13 AM)Repo Wrote:  How can you not be sure with how OP intended to use it when you read the entirety of the thread title? "Expected outcome"… what else could he be imlying here? He is literally saying that if you date interacially you will get fucked, and you are debating his true intention? Even without the use of the term "coalburning", the title would read "White woman dates black man, expected outcome". Still racist.

You must have missed my post, or completely misunderstood it.

You're seeing events the way you want to see them, not as they are. It's confirmation bias. You've already decided that OP is "guilty" and now you're backwards rationalizing it.

If someone were to write: "Black guy moving into White trash neighborhood has unexpected outcome"

Would it make that person racist? Or would that person be describing a dynamic that's a pattern with a specific subset of a group that's secondary to the race as a whole?

You're ascribing an incredible amount of hostility to someone showing no apparent resentment while using a word which has multiple connotations. The connotation you're accusing him of isn't even the most common, as far as I know.

Was it a dumb choice of words? Sure, I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.

The thing is, nobody really knows for certain what was meant by it. At the very least, he deserves plausible deniability.

And please, don't think that I'm "taking a side" merely for disagreeing and trying to point out rationalizations based on flawed logic. Just because I'm going against the groupthink doesn't make me your enemy.

Post: #153

(08-29-2016 10:56 AM)Fortis Wrote:  Thoughtgypsy, why do you and others persist in saying "well black people do it too!?"

That has nothing to do with this thread. Rev, Sidney and Nomad can't seem to get off that bit, but I wasn't expecting you to jump on that as well.

I will state this plainly for everyone because no matter how many times I've said it everyone seems to gloss over it and bring it up again:

Of course, Blacks, Asians, and other people are racist.




Who is denying that? This isn't some SJW haven where we say dumb shit like "only people in power can be racist" or some other manner of feminist bullshit.

The real world has idiots, but that isn't how RVF is; we don't kowtow to that sort of behavior. I'd get kicked out of here fast if I said, "you white boys need to lay off our black women." I also don't really give a fuck what you guys do.

You will rarely see black membership on RVF hating on white guys trying to swoop black girls. I've gone out with Asian and White guys from this great forum and seen them hit on Black chicks. I'm all for it. Sure, some idiot outside may not like it, but assuming that we are all complicit in the black anti-Interracial shit is retarded.

That'd be like me assuming all the white guys here tacitly agree with some outlandish race nonsense (like Enfield's thread title choice).

The only reason I took offense to this thread and its title is because guys were coming in here saying that we (black guys) were wrong to be insulted by Enfield's stupid thread title choice. You can point out a man's game without referring to the activity as "coalburning." That sort of thing is cowardly. I don't know if Enfield has bone to pick with black guys and I won't speculate.

It is VERY easy for non-blacks to say "guys, I just said 'nigger' why are you guys getting so angry? It isn't a big deal." but, like Excelsior said, don't expect for shit to be cool between you and the black man in question after something like that.

TG, I've talked to you a lot outside of this forum, so don't take it personally, but I think you're missing the point of why the black membership of RVF is annoyed in the first place.

This isn't to say that we have the final say on anything, but was it really worth it for Enfield to use "coalburning" in his thread title?

Just seems like crass nonsense from an otherwise OK forum member.

Strawman logic.

The reason I brought up race is to point out that race threads cause tension and often lead to conflict and misunderstanding:

(08-29-2016 09:57 AM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  So, race is always going to be a contentious topic for different groups for different reasons. The tension that many people hold privately gets wound up, and when these topics are breached that resentment boils to the forefront. On these issues we're often coming from completely different perspectives, and it's difficult to reconcile and understand each other. These threads almost never end well, but when they come up, we should do our best to stay as dispassionate as possible and read too much into what could be minor details. It will only create wider rifts.

I also acknowledged that Black members are legitimately justified in getting offended over the choice of words, and raising questions as to what OP is getting at.

(08-29-2016 09:57 AM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  First, it's a bad idea to use words that are sure to anger others or earn you a punch in the face if you were to say them in public. The internet anonymity allows people the ability to act more brazenly than they otherwise would. It also makes it easier to forget all of those who will read whatever you write.
...
It was in bad taste to use the word coalburner, and I can see where you guys are coming from in pointing out the extremely negative connotations it could be interpreted with. But I'm not sure OP used it with the intention of vitriol that's being attributed to him.
...
I can understand the conflict these threads create. Race is a hot button topic in America. While nearly all peoples have been subject to slavery, Black people are still dealing with the scars of a socioeconomic and political system that keeps them mired in a lack of opportunity. Our educational system and media reinforces racial boundaries through constant reminders of historical grievances and couching racial undertones in every issue.

Where I disagree is that we can say with 100% certainty what OP's intentions were when it isn't clear. Since it isn't clear, it's dangerous to take the line of thinking where "he's guilty. I know he's guilty", since it tends to be a self fulfilling prophecy.

Now, if he has an obviously toxic view about multiracial dating, then sure, he'll get what's coming to him. I'm not trying to absolve him if that were the case-- and it certainly might be, who knows. Mainly, I'd like to pause with the judgment until the man has an opportunity to shed clarity on what they meant, and only then decide the severity of their sins.

Otherwise it leads to piling on imagined crimes to justify the preemptive judgment that only causes more rifts and misunderstanding.

For instance, there were a number of guys bringing up topics that OP never even mentioned. Things like, "anyone who gets resentful of their women dating men outside their race is often a loser", which is true, but also something that OP never said or even appeared to convey through a post which was if anything, congratulatory to the Jamaican player. And, like you mentioned, those saying that "racism is OK because everyone does it" to justify racism. They're off topic issues that are being invented from misinterpretations.

It's hard to discuss these things without courting conflict and inviting logical errors and hasty judgement into the mix. That's why I think it's important to establish clarity first where things are murky before diving in.

Post: #154

I'm not sure which thread contributes less to the overall dialogue of RVF. This, or "Taylor Swift is a 6".

Both =

Post: #155

(08-29-2016 11:10 AM)Avon Barksdale Wrote:  The Rationalization is very strong in this thread

I find it pretty ultra unfortunate that two millennia of Anglo men got wrongly taught to put pussy on the pedestal, to the point they unknowingly gave their foremothers posthumous pussy passes to be dickriding the Vikings, before the Crusades.

Of course, two of the logical effects of the Vikings and the era's Englishwomen includes pre-Crusades Englishmen getting cucked, and pre-Crusades Englishmen, literally white knighting by blaming AND killing the Jews out of sexual frustration.

Post: #156

(08-29-2016 11:55 AM)Red_Pillage Wrote:  I'm not sure which thread contributes less to the overall dialogue of RVF. This, or "Taylor Swift is a 6".

Both =

Hey we got more sexy pics out of the Swift thread and I call that a win. That coupled with LoZ boner inducing language made it well worth it.

Post: #157

(08-29-2016 06:52 AM)Il Bersagliere Wrote:  I suspect we'll be waiting a while to see specific excerpts from that thread he was referring to.

You'll be waiting a while, because I'm not going to fan the flames any more, particularly when these quotes would be from valuable members and I have no intention of creating more controversy. Perhaps you want to chime in on if you think 'white boy' is a derogatory term or not, because it's being used by members in that thread?

Using coalburner in the topic is derogatory, clearly.

OP messed up, got told off, the end? No, because then some members turn it into 'oh woe is me, it's the worst ever,'. Particularly when some of these members have some things in their posting history which are quite racist, admittedly usually in a passive aggressive form.

Compared to the off the cut slur the OP used, I find this other racism more insideous, because it is masked about talks about 'privilege' and 'discrimination' and 'white mans world' and endless discussion about how to make it against this perceived slighting, it reveals a fundamental worldview of one part of the forum membership to be part of this structural oppression.

You're right to be insulted by the use of coalburner, but just how insulted? Enough to go on tirades like this:

Quote:That's what I disgust about you lot the most.

Once again, to all of those who support and promote this kind of bullshit: Fuck you, your ilk, and the hole you lot crawled out of.

Yeah, I'm going to read more into that than just a reaction to the OP, particularly when one might remember same poster going on tirades against white privilege as good as the best SJWs could. I consider using words like white privilege hostile and racist.

And that's when people go off, hypersensitive to insult, completely oblivious or just not caring about their own racial prejudice or outright racist beliefs. And so I couldn't resist calling out the hypocrisy, because I don't like holier than thou attitudes.

The original topic is trite and not worth commentary.

Post: #158

(08-28-2016 11:43 PM)Buck Wild Wrote:  People like Excelsior, mikado, Fortis, etc are calmly and rationally laying out the case for race-neutral respect & unity here in the forum and are maintaining their cool and staying on point even in the face of the usual goal-posting moving, squid ink-style tactics, and evidence-free argument-by-assertion gambits deployed by their ostensible adversaries.

Disagreed.

One person used the term coal burner and he was IMMEDIATELY called out by dozens of members. Almost no one else in this thread has supported the use of that term, which I think we all agree has a pretty negative connotation.

Yet you have people using this as evidence of why black members don't feel comfortable posting on the forum as a whole. You have several black members talking about the "forum", "community", "manosphere", etc. and making other implications about widespread racism.

This is clearly BIGGER than one person saying coal burner and being quickly suspended.

Yet every white poster who tries to have a bigger conversation about the issue is immediately told he's off topic, moving the goalposts, etc.

People are saying we're talking about things that are "outside the forum", yet no one said anything when Excelsior brought up how white girls ignore black guys on internet dating because of white guys' views on interracial dating.

What does THAT have to do with anyone on this forum?

If you have a problem, tell us what your problem is. Don't talk about how blacks are being pushed out of the community and then get mad when someone tries to address that point.

It's passive aggressive and it doesn't solve anything.

Lay out your argument, let people respond, and go from there. That way people don't have to try to guess around what you're talking about.

I really value the contributions the non-white members make here and want them to keep participating. In fact, most of my favorite posters are black. But I'm not going to sit here and kiss anyone's ass.

I have no problem with the "black guy game thread". There's a lot of great content in there. I have no problem with black guys talking about black guys issues.

But don't sit here and get mad because white guys want to talk about white guy issues. Yes, it's a bigger topic here -- because we're the majority.

Sorry. What do you want me to do about it? Should we just start banning white members to make black members feel more comfortable?

If you want people to see things from your perspective, then SHARE your perspective. That's why people love guys like TravelerKai and Anabasis (RIP) -- they engage the rest of the forum and give their point of view.

If no black guys are willing to share their opinion or speak up when something bothers them, how are we supposed to know? Do you think we can read your mind through the internet and tell when we've offended you?

And as I alluded to in my last post, it's complete bullshit to sit here and try to imply that there's some kind of malicious, deep seated racism throughout the forum.

Just because someone says something you consider "racist" or insensitive doesn't mean they hate black people and burn crosses in their free time. This is total SJW bullshit and I'm really disappointed to see so many in this thread engaging in this.

I've read through some of the "black guy game thread". Many of the black members struggle with their identity, including some of the ones posting in this thread. I've listened to many of the podcasts. Many of the black members do not have stereotypically "black" voices or vocal patterns.

Do you think white guys don't have similar struggles with our identity?

OMG I said "black guys do it too!!!!!"

That's not pointing fingers. It's pointing out our common ground.

Many of the white guys on this forum are fairly young. Many of us have been exposed to years of brainwashing. Many of us didn't have strong male role models in our lives. Many of us are exploring new ideas and ideologies and philosophies.

We're trying to figure things out. Many of us have been made to feel ashamed of our race for so long that we overcorrect in the other direction. Just because we say something you find offensive doesn't mean there's malicious intent about it, and just because we say something you find offensive doesn't mean it's wrong.

If you're struggling with your own identity and race, don't come in here and try to lecture other people on how wrong they are. Explain yourself, let them explain themselves, and maybe you'll both learn something.

"We don't say anything about white guys dating black girls"

First of all, most white guys on this forum haven't said anything about black guys on this forum dating outside their race.

Second of all, how many times does rudebwoy, Archie, etc. have to tell guys in the BGGT to stop bashing black women?

Trust me, I have a very good memory. Excelsior and Fortis struggle with being rejected by black women for not being "black" enough, yet attack white guys for struggling with white women who reject them for black men.

Do you not see the parallels there?

Get off your high horse and stop trying to moralize like you don't have your own problems with women of your race, with your racial identity, etc.

I'm sure some people will be put off by the the tone of this post, but this is nothing but real talk. I like Excelsior, I like Fortis, I like Archie, Moma, Kai, Sourcecode, etc.

But don't bullshit me. Either we all show each other respect as men, or there's nothing to talk about.

Post: #159

I have a very large and serious question for the Black Community:

How the hell can you guys be so creative and inspiring especially in music, fashion, comedy, and athletics but you guys have fucking zero game when coming up with white slurs and good jokes that make us laugh at ourselves?

Honkey?
Cracka?
Whitey?
Whiteboi?

Pathetic. You have had hundreds of years to catch up with us.

I have a theory whites are supreme at attacking people either in a war, colonization, or psychological context. It is our bread and butter. To pay for this we can't dance and even the smoothest of us talk faggy like Justin Timberlake. Many of us also laugh like a robot version of Mr. Rodgers.

Post: #160

Quote:Travesty
Reputation: 88

Are you trying to tell us something ?

Post: #161

Listen I am not trying to say that white people are great and evil at the same time, but yeah we are great and evil at the same time.

Post: #162

(08-28-2016 07:59 AM)JacksonRev Wrote:  I expect pushback from any community where I'm banging their women. That's just life. Everything is about women. Expecting a high five for banging another group's women is so retarded I can't even understand how a guy would flip shit over that.

Bingo! It really is all about the women. I haven't dated a white woman in years and as a consequence, I've learned a lot about inter racial pairings. When me and my Ethiopian girlfriend walk through the grocery store or stroll through the county fair its the female that gets the cross looks. It's why is she with him, never why is he with her. For the most part, nobody cares about the dude crossing over the race lines. People seem to take ownership over 'their' women. Occasionally you'll run across a chick who hampsters about the dude crossing over. But those are damaged, low value females who can't find a 'good guy'.

Uzi

Post: #163

(08-29-2016 01:37 PM)Enigma Wrote:  Trust me, I have a very good memory. Excelsior and Fortis struggle with being rejected by black women for not being "black" enough, yet attack white guys for struggling with white women who reject them for black men.

Where did I attack white guys for struggling with white women who reject them for black men.

So by saying "hey guys, we shouldn't use coalburner" I am attacking white men who struggle with white women who reject them for black men?

Didn't realize I was denying your struggle by not liking it when you equate fucking a black man to burning coal or other low-class shit.



Enigma, don't bullshit me either.

Post: #164

delete

Post: #165

I think we can at least all agree that:

1) Using racially charged words that serve no other purpose but to piss off a large portion of the forum membership is not cool.

2) Racism from one group does not justify racism from another.

If that's established, then perhaps we can move on and get into the other details.

Post: #166

(08-29-2016 05:46 PM)Fortis Wrote:  

(08-29-2016 01:37 PM)Enigma Wrote:  Trust me, I have a very good memory. Excelsior and Fortis struggle with being rejected by black women for not being "black" enough, yet attack white guys for struggling with white women who reject them for black men.

Where did I attack white guys for struggling with white women who reject them for black men.

So by saying "hey guys, we shouldn't use coalburner" I am attacking white men who struggle with white women who reject them for black men?

Didn't realize I was denying your struggle by not liking it when you equate fucking a black man to burning coal or other low-class shit.



Enigma, don't bullshit me either.

You really just proved my point.

I typed up a long, thought out post where I repeatedly asked for people to express the issues that make someone like Excelsior say that he doesn't feel comfortable posting on the forum, and you choose to ignore 95% of it and mock me with gifs.

I and pretty much everyone in this thread have repeatedly stated that coal burning isn't a term that should be used on the forum, nor should black forum members be shamed about dating outside their race. But you refuse to give me even a cursory amount of respect.

This isn't really about everyone coming together and getting along, it's just your excuse to let off steam and lash out at some vague negativity that you're not able to explain in real terms.

Quote:Either we all show each other respect as men, or there's nothing to talk about.

Post: #167

I thought we had reached peak fuckery in this thread after page 2, but I was wrong.

(08-27-2016 12:28 PM)Aurini Wrote:  Hmm... I wonder why that is?

This is just speculation - feel free to disagree with me - but it fits the pattern of modern doublethink: "Big Brother is Ungood." Anything white and/or male can be criticized, but anything going in the opposite direction is verboten. In this case, Blacks and women are near the top of the privilege hierarchy, so "coal burning" is crime think because it criticizes both groups. Yellow fever, on the other hand, ridicules White men and Asian women, who are acceptable targets for ridicule.

The term "coal burner" (or mudshark or its variants) is specifically designed to imply that a white woman who engages in romantic contact with any black male is dirty, damaged, ruined, or otherwise deformed by virtue of said contact. The term as it is typically used applies generally to such contact and makes no exceptions or allowances for the character, disposition, or other personal traits associated with the black male in question. It is designed to shame white women who engage in romantic contact with such men by impressing upon them that they will be viewed as dirty, broken women for doing so. This belief is quite widespread in the United States, hence the general stigma surrounding these relationships and the prevalence of terms like "coal burner".

The term "yellow fever" merely describes a white male with a strong attraction to Asian women. The term does not imply that said men are dirty, damaged, or otherwise deformed by virtue of this attraction and the contact resulting from it. It does not imply and is not commonly used to imply that the woman who engages in such contact with said white male is dirty, damaged, ruined, or otherwise deformed by such contact. It does not imply that the male in question is deformed for having an attraction to said women or acting on that attraction. This is reflective of the fact that there is not such a widely held belief in this society that men and women who engage in white male/asian female unions are dirty, broken, ruined, or otherwise defective and inferior in any way. (A sister term, "jungle fever", functions in pretty much exactly the same way with regard to white male attraction to black women - similarly, stigmas surrounding those involved in such unions are lacking and neither party is widely considered "dirty" or "ruined" for having acted upon their attraction).

One is effectively saying that if you touch a black man, you are dirt. The other is saying that you have a strong attraction to a certain group of women without adding the stipulation that action upon said attraction reflects negatively on your quality as a human being. The reaction in this thread is not about people adhering to some sort of "privilege hierarchy". It is about the two situations in questions being incomparable. There is no equivalence between them.

Cattle Rustler did a good job of outlining this false equivalence earlier in this thread and presenting a scenario that would actually be comparable:

(08-27-2016 03:03 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

(08-27-2016 02:51 PM)Aurini Wrote:  I was doing nothing of the sort. I do not think that White men are the ultimate victims - I merely note that, according to the SJW Victim Hierarchy, they're the group that's utterly safe to criticize, and the vehemence of the reaction against OP caused me to raise an eyebrow.

If OP had posted an unflattering stereotype about Whites - EG: Betas who get played by semi-pros in Asia - would that have received such a visceral reaction? Would that have been decried as race baiting? I doubt it. But as soon as he points out an unflattering stereotype about one of the SJW protected groups, the response was - at least in my eyes - immediate, excessive, and knee-jerk.

Now that said, I do think OP could have been far less inflammatory. I try and do my best to walk the fine line between stating blunt truths, while avoiding language that does more to alienate than elucidate, but it's one heck of a balancing act. Clearly OP tipped over into one side, but that really merit such levels of vitriol?

The reason I pointed it out wasn't due to some sense of ethnic grievance mongering. I pointed it out because I think the men of this forum are better than this.

@Aurini:

Beta is a group of men, men of all races are and can be beta. If someone has said "Weak Cracker" or "White Trash Beta who got played by semi-pros in Asia" then yeah, that would be race baiting against white people and should be called out equally. It has in the past. There's a difference between pointing out the facts and name calling in hopes of getting a reaction. What does the adjective "coal burning" add of value to the story?

In other news, I'm just waiting for someone to say "No!!! You're the real racist!!!"

That you are here trying to draw a comparison between these two incomparable things is, at best, ignorant and, at worst, deliberately disingenuous.

(08-27-2016 12:28 PM)Aurini Wrote:  Patterns are patterns. I'm sorry if this hurts anyone's feelings, but we've all made a point of recognizing patterns when it comes to women - and there's a pattern here that's worth noticing....

...Recognizing this pattern doesn't mean I'm defending racial vitriol. The sort of person who sees a White woman married to a successful Black man whom she met at church - and who screams "Mud shark coal burner!" - is just a sad and pathetic human being, motivated by envy. Nobody wants to hang out with that loser.

But that's not what we're seeing here.

White woman fetishizes an impoverished Black man; Black man is sexually aggressive and manipulative with a White woman who's about to get married (is buying a woman an engagement ring under false pretenses "Game" now?). Black man exploits her financially before abandoning her, with revelations that he's been cheating on her since day one.

Are we, or are we not, allowed to notice that this is a recurrent pattern in today's society?

Patterns? You want to talk about patterns?

Would it be ok for me to reference historical patterns involving white men running around the world knocking up non-white women (a practice directly responsible for the existence of several unique demographic groups today) and then just leaving them be, often with little effort to treat their mixed off-spring and descendants with the same dignity and respect received by white children? Would it be ok for me to reference historical patterns involving the rape and coercion associated with these unions, and the horrible treatment of non-white men associated with that? Would it be ok for me to say this is all a recurrent historical pattern and ask if I'm "allowed to notice" it?

How would you respond to me bringing all that up? Would you tell me its cool and I'm "allowed to notice" these recurrent historical patterns and apply them to my judgment all white men today who, as individuals, had nothing to do with it?
Or would you say it's a load of bullshit for me to even attempt to judge, stigmatize, and stereotype white men on a host of historical patterns involving events way before their time that they had nothing to do with and don't support?

I think I know the answer to that question, and I'd agree with it - I wouldn't consider it fair to instantly label individuals on the basis of larger socio-cultural patterns that are not necessarily associated with them as individuals, but are merely tied to people who looked like them. I think that'd be unfair to those people as unique individuals - they deserve to be looked at as people, not cogs in a big socio-cultural wheel.

The question is why you think it might be ok not to extend that same treatment to black men.

Furthermore, you are sitting here honestly attempting to imply that terms like "mudshark" and "coalburner" are used to refer to white women who get involved with black men who are of low character.

The terms "mud shark" and "coal burner" make no distinction with regard to the character of the black male in question and are applied to black men of both low and high character. They are applied to such unions well before such character analysis is done because their intent makes such analysis irrelevant - their entire point is to shame white women who engage in such unions by labeling their relationship as something inherently dirty or defective and implying that their engaging it it attaches those negative qualities to them.

Case in point:

(12-19-2015 05:05 PM)NomadofEU Wrote:  Corny lines, bad acting, worse writing, and a fumbling pace make for a predictable rehash. I'll give it a generous 6/10 for neat visuals and a solid soundtrack.
None of the characters had any depth and their development is typical of a J.J. Abrams film... in that it is virtually non-existent.
Kylo Ren turned out to be a hipster wearing a helmet and I'd be willing to bet that Rey is gonna go Mudshark with Finn at some point.

The term "mudshark" has been applied here.

Has any sort of character analysis been used in that application? Is the term being applied because the character Finn is a piece of shit and has displayed himself to be a piece of shit?
Or has the term been applied because Finn is black, and the use of the term "mudshark" (and its most popular sister terms, like "coal burner") is actually intended to be applied in a blanket manner to black male/white female unions regardless of the character of the individuals involved and with more reference instead to stereotypes associated with people who look/act like them? Keep in mind that this post is a textbook example of the most common method and context associated with the use of said terms.

You are trying to create a distinction in the use of these terms that simply does not exist. You are doing this in order to try and justify behavior that is, frankly, unjustifiable. It is an argument that is simply indefensible to anyone who has frequently seen these terms and is familiar with the context in which they are used. We know that these terms are not intended to shame women who engage with low-character men. They're intended to apply to all of us. We have seen them used accordingly in that manner, both against us and those like us - we are not idiots.

So just cut the bullshit.

This is exactly the kind of goal-post moving, obfuscating fuckery that I've simply lost patience with.
First it's "Nah bro, it was just a joke!"
Then it's "Well we weren't talking about those good black guys, we were only referring to low character black men!" (even though the terms being used have zero history of such selective application and have quite explicitly been used as general slurs against black men of ALL kinds)
Then it's "Well, you guys do it too! Check your privilege!" (before proceeding to bring up completely incomparable situations as parallels).

Anything to avoid simply owning up to the fuckery and squashing it.

Post: #168

(08-28-2016 07:59 AM)JacksonRev Wrote:  Lol.

I've banged more black women than white women. You might not care, but a whole lot of black people do. Actually banged a beautiful 21 year old mixed girl last week, light skin and legs that went for miles. Anytime I'm out with a black girl, I get shit and she gets shit.

"Why you with that white boy?" "Fucking honky" "You miss a rodeo?"

It is what is. What I'm not doing is making whole threads about it.

The entire thread on how to get black women as a white guy: Go talk to her. Don't be a pussy. It helps to have a good sized dick for repeat fucks. The end.

I'm not whining that someone said something mean to me. I'm not bitching that other men made it hard for me to get laid, which obviously only happened because of my race.

I expect pushback from any community where I'm banging their women. That's just life. Everything is about women. Expecting a high five for banging another group's women is so retarded I can't even understand how a guy would flip shit over that.

Any time you step out of your group, you're going to get more shit from everyone. Your own tribe, and especially the tribe you walked in to. Does that mean if you walked in with pure intentions, that you're looking for a wife and kids, that you can make it work? You can, but you still have to be one tough mother to deal with the shit.

And if you're going into someone else's community to just find em, fuck em and flee? You better be a straight up bad ass to make it in and out.

If you can't handle the game, just settle down, make some kids, and move on.

Again, a whole lot of irrelevant talk.

What this boils down to is very, very simple:

I do not make a habit of implying that women who look like me who get with men who do not look like me are inherently dirty, broken women who ruined by virtue of that association.

The question is this: are you willing to extend that same treatment to me?

If you answer to that question is yes (while affirming that anything less than or other than "yes" is fuckery and squashing it accordingly), we're cool.

If your answer to that questions is no, fuck off.
If your answer to that question is "eh it's just human nature bro", fuck off.
If your answer to that question is "well you guys do it too!" followed by a whole bunch of false equivalences, fuck off.
If your answer to that question involves defending, excusing, and otherwise sympathizing with those who explicitly refuse to extend such treatment to me and use terms designed to express that intent, fuck off.

This is not that complicated. I can respect you enough to avoid using differences in physical appearance or a history that you had nothing to do with as an individual to insist that a woman is inherently defective for getting with you and, instead, judge you as an individual.
If you can't do the same for me, then don't try to shake my hand and pretend we're cool. We're not.

(08-28-2016 09:06 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  I'm reading the black man game thread to see what the fuss is about and some of you guys probably should tone it down a bit with the hysterics, considering there's a lot of 'white boy' and 'white priviledge' just in the first 2 pages I read. Not considering the entire premise in most of those discussions which is that whites actively discriminate blacks in nightlife, when a lot of black clubs a white man probably gets jumped or worse.

There's a seething undercurrent in that thread and it's not exactly colorblind.

I'm not even going to bother.

(08-29-2016 09:57 AM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  It was in bad taste to use the word coalburner, and I can see where you guys are coming from in pointing out the extremely negative connotations it could be interpreted with. But I'm not sure OP used it with the intention of vitriol that's being attributed to him.

To be honest, I don't know many people that use the word, but I can't see it being used to paint an entire race in a negative light.

I do. It is explicitly designed to paint an entire race in a negative light by presuming that any white woman associated with them is dirty or defective. The term "mudshark" is used in the same way. There is no ambiguity here.

Quote:When people use words like that, they're often attempting to come up with a simple generalization a stereotype. But for most of the people who would use it, I think race is a secondary issue.

No. Race is the primary issue for those who choose to use terms like mudshark and coalburner, and there is nothing remotely secondary about it. They are explicitly racial terms with an explicitly negative connotations that leave no room for character valuations or other nuances.

Quote:Like Aurini said, you don't see educated White women who date Black professionals being labeled negatively, except for maybe among an extreme minority of low class Whites.

Yes you do. I see highly educated men at Ivy League schools labeling their equally educated white female peers simply because they were seen fraternizing with black men around campus. I see such labels applied by men who are Democrats and Republicans, bankers and policemen, lawyers and union tradesmen, consultants and truck drivers. The women involved have ranged from uneducated strippers to college educated beauty queens, bankers, actresses, models, real estate agents, and lawyers.

This involves all kinds of people. To imply that it is an issue limited to "an extreme minority" of folks who are only "low class" is to either belie one's own complete lack of experience with/knowledge of this term and its usage or simply misrepresent the issue to defend and soft-pedal an explicitly racially hostile statement and present it as something other than what it is.

I sincerely hope that the former is applicable here.

Quote:It's most likely used more to describe a specific type of White woman who goes for a specific type of Black man. It's more of a stereotype for the cliche of the overweight tatted White 5 who goes for the unemployed gangbanger with domestic issues.

If you are a beauty queen and your boyfriend is a wide receiver on the football team who came from a two parent household, does well in school, is a team leader, takes and active and prominent role in the community supporting youth and other initiatives, and came up in a middle class household with no domestic issues of note, you can and will still be labelled a mudshark or coalburner by a very large number of men, who will also imply that your father must be ashamed of you and you probably have serious mental issues.

Your complete and total misrepresentation of the common context and use of these terms is bordering on absurdity. You literally could not be less correct than you are.

Quote:It's a not-so-uncommon pattern that people came up with a word for it. It's not an attack on Black people as a race, just a specific subset. It's like the word White trash, a word I'll use fairly often. When I say White trash, I'm not talking about all White people. I'm talking about a specific group of low class Whites who live in trailer parks, drink bud light and smoke meth.

The terms "coalburner" and "mudshark" make no distinctions based on class or character.
This is a false equivalence. We've had a lot of that in this thread, and I've had just about enough of it.
If you're not willing to own up to the fuckery and squash it accordingly, then so be it. I've got 50 years to live and I'm not spending a second more of it than I have to spend associating with folks willing to go through any level of mental gymnastics to excuse this kind of bullshit.

Quote:I can understand the conflict these threads create. Race is a hot button topic in America. While nearly all peoples have been subject to slavery, Black people are still dealing with the scars of a socioeconomic and political system that keeps them mired in a lack of opportunity. Our educational system and media reinforces racial boundaries through constant reminders of historical grievances and couching racial undertones in every issue.

Many Whites are also sick and tired of being bombarded with White guilt for crimes committed before they were born. It gets annoying being told that your whole race is uniquely evil and you should apologize for simply existing. Kind of like how it gets tiring for men to be told that all men are rapists.

There are double standards when it comes to race. Black comics are allowed to say things that Whites aren't. If Black Lives Matter were to have a White counterpart, I'm pretty sure all members would have been indicted for domestic terrorism, treason, RICO, or something similar. There are certainly White race baiters, but they're not given a mainstream national platform like other groups.



I was kind of surprised that, in at least in one thread, the general consensus among people who aren't White on the forum is that White people should be barred from being allowed to express their cultural identity while every other race or group shouldn't. It's an attitude that I believe will only encourage alienation between groups.

So, race is always going to be a contentious topic for different groups for different reasons. The tension that many people hold privately gets wound up, and when these topics are breached that resentment boils to the forefront. On these issues we're often coming from completely different perspectives, and it's difficult to reconcile and understand each other. These threads almost never end well, but when they come up, we should do our best to stay as dispassionate as possible and read too much into what could be minor details. It will only create wider rifts.

Once again, this shit is not that complicated. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing "minor" about the details being discussed here.

The term "coalburner" (and its most popular sister, "mudshark") is not a race neutral term or a term designed to refer only to those with poor character or what have you. It is a term explicitly designed to shame all white women who associated with black men romantically. This is abundantly clear to anybody who is familiar with the use of this term and has seen said use on more than one occasion.

I do not make a habit of implying that women who look like me who get with men who do not look like me are inherently dirty, broken women who ruined by virtue of that association.

The question, for the umpteenth time, is this: are you willing to extend that same treatment to me?

If you like to run around using the term "coalburner", the odds of you being able to make an honest "yes" response to that question (your and other members' attempted rationalizations and attempted obfuscations of the true meaning of that term notwithstanding) are zero, which means you can fuck off.

Post: #169

(08-27-2016 01:40 PM)Enigma Wrote:  None of this is exclusive to white and black American relations though, nor is it limited to modern times.

Men of all cultures during all time periods have shunned their women from dating outside of their tribe. Men in Asia will literally call the girl a slut while you're standing right there. It's part of human nature.

Another variant of obfuscating fuckery outlined above.

"It's just human nature man."

No, this is not about human nature. That's another bullshit cop-out that I'm not about to co-sign. This is about insecure, self-serving fuckery designed to insult an entire group of men by equating them with dirt and implying that their mere proximity to certain women "ruins" those women for good.

When men who do not look like me get with women who do look like me, I do not respond by implying that those women are "ruined" by virtue of said romantic association. I do not imply that said women are dirty or broken simply because the man they have decided to get with is a man who is not of their precise racial background and/or doesn't look like I do. That's how I will treat you.

If you're not willing to extend that same treatment to me, then I don't want to know you. We're not cool.
If you're willing to excuse, defend, and sympathize with those who are unwilling to extend that same treatment to me and who show said unwillingness by making use of language explicitly designed to extend the opposite treatment to me, then we're not cool.

This is not that complicated.

Quote:We even had an African poster on the forum recently who celebrated the Tutsi's practice of only dating other Tutsi to preserve their bloodline. But I didn't see anyone calling him racist.

Did he follow that up by insisting that Tutsi women who did date out were inherently broken, deformed, dirty, or otherwise defective on a personal level?

Quote:I agree that coal burning is a term that shouldn't be used on the forum, and that many of the posters here are too reactionary and take "race realism" too far. Lord knows I've gone to bat countless times for non-whites on this forum.

But at the same time, damn if I'm not tired of being called a racist simply for having an identity or doing the same things every other race does.

I actually had one of my closest friends from growing up post a HuffPost article on FB recently that basically said all whites are inherently racist and we need to learn to treat blacks better.

That legitimately hurt me, though my personality isn't usually one to admit that.

This is someone that used to be at my house everyday as kids, and that my parents not only treated with the utmost respect but as part of the family.

But according to one of Huffington Post's thousands of freelance bloggers, I'm a racist now. And he's someone who's well-educated and came from a decent background. Both he and his sister's have PhDs.

Their views are nothing compared to what many lower class blacks in America currently express about whites on a daily basis.

And don't even get me started on how many people consider me a racist just because of the candidate I support for president, someone who has been an icon in the hip hop community for years and yet is suddenly "literally Hitler" and apparently tarnishes everyone that associates with him.

Meanwhile people like Herschel Walker or Mike Tyson -- who talk about how generous and supportive Trump was towards them throughout difficult times in their life -- are greeted with an endless stream of "coon", "Uncle Tom", "house negro", etc. and have their character attacks and livelihood threatened ad infinitum.

Black people are harassed at work, shot in bar, etc. all for having an opinion. Yet it's Trump supporters who are supposedly the real racists.

On the other hand, notice how most of the Trump supporters on this forum support nationalism for Japan, nationalism for the Philippines, nationalism for Russia.

Yet god forbid we don't let millions of people illegally flood into the US. We all "owe" non-whites a "debt" for "slavery" and "colonialism" that we'll never be able to repay, regardless of the fact that this is all completely ahistorical when put into the proper perspective and relies on the retarded American version of race where the entire world is split up into white, black, Asian, Arab, and Latino, which completely falls apart under even the smallest of scrutiny.

I've lived in all-black hoods, white suburbs, and the third-world, smoked weed with Jamaican dope boys and talked politics with upper class Filipinos. I've seen firsthand who is living how and who is doing what. The okey-doke doesn't work on me.

If I can't even have an identity or express any concern for my own interests or the issues that affect me, you're right, we're not brothers. I respect you a lot as a poster, but if that's how you feel, that's how you feel.

A whole lot of talk about a whole lot of things that are entirely irrelevant to this conversation.

I've said nothing at all about your ability to have an identity or the validity of the "all whites are inherently racist" narrative, nor have I implied that said narrative is acceptable or valid.

The post to which you are responding made explicit reference to the fact that the attitude I was criticizing transcended political lines and occurred within areas and among people both liberal and conservative. I made a point of referencing instances of this shaming of interracial unions by those on the left specifically to counter the narrative that all conservatives are racists and all racists are conservatives. I know that narrative is false - I learned that the hard way at left-leaning Ivy League schools in parts of the country that no Republican could ever hope to win in an election, areas where people regularly claim moral supremacy over others by virtue of who they vote for and the platitudes they spout. Actions speak louder than words.

Why you bothered to go on about all of that is beyond me, but I'll re-iterate again what this actually boils down to:

When men who do not look like me get with women who do look like me, I do not respond by implying that those women are "ruined" by virtue of said romantic association. I do not imply that said women are dirty or broken simply because the man they have decided to get with is a man who is not of their precise racial background and/or doesn't look like I do. That's how I will treat you.

If you're willing to extend that same treatment to me, then we have no issues.

If you're not willing to extend that same treatment to me, then fuck off.
If you're willing to excuse, defend, and sympathize with those who are unwilling to extend that same treatment to me and make use of language explicitly designed to extend the opposite treatment to me, then fuck off.

This is not that complicated.

(08-29-2016 01:37 PM)Enigma Wrote:  People are saying we're talking about things that are "outside the forum", yet no one said anything when Excelsior brought up how white girls ignore black guys on internet dating because of white guys' views on interracial dating.

What does THAT have to do with anyone on this forum?

I brought that up in order to illustrate the fact that the dynamic I am criticizing is not one limited to conservatives, trump supporters, or white men.
Given your response, perhaps I was mistaken in doing that.

Quote:But don't sit here and get mad because white guys want to talk about white guy issues. Yes, it's a bigger topic here -- because we're the majority.

Is that what's happening here? Folks are upset simply because some people were talking about "white guy issues"? They aren't upset because some people were using terms explicitly designed to insult them by implying that every woman who touches them is dirty/defective/low-class/garbage?

Is the use of terms explicitly designed to insult those non-white men by implying that every woman who touches them is dirty/defective/low-class/garbage a "white guy issue"?

Quote:Sorry. What do you want me to do about it? Should we just start banning white members to make black members feel more comfortable?

If you want people to see things from your perspective, then SHARE your perspective. That's why people love guys like TravelerKai and Anabasis (RIP) -- they engage the rest of the forum and give their point of view.

If no black guys are willing to share their opinion or speak up when something bothers them, how are we supposed to know? Do you think we can read your mind through the internet and tell when we've offended you?

Folks are speaking up right now. The response they are getting (which ranges from outright denial to more subtle forms of obfuscation and goal-post moving) is telling.

Quote:I've read through some of the "black guy game thread". Many of the black members struggle with their identity, including some of the ones posting in this thread. I've listened to many of the podcasts. Many of the black members do not have stereotypically "black" voices or vocal patterns.

Do you think white guys don't have similar struggles with our identity?

OMG I said "black guys do it too!!!!!"

That's not pointing fingers. It's pointing out our common ground.

Many of the white guys on this forum are fairly young. Many of us have been exposed to years of brainwashing. Many of us didn't have strong male role models in our lives. Many of us are exploring new ideas and ideologies and philosophies.

We're trying to figure things out. Many of us have been made to feel ashamed of our race for so long that we overcorrect in the other direction. Just because we say something you find offensive doesn't mean there's malicious intent about it, and just because we say something you find offensive doesn't mean it's wrong.

If you're struggling with your own identity and race, don't come in here and try to lecture other people on how wrong they are. Explain yourself, let them explain themselves, and maybe you'll both learn something.

"We don't say anything about white guys dating black girls"

First of all, most white guys on this forum haven't said anything about black guys on this forum dating outside their race.

Second of all, how many times does rudebwoy, Archie, etc. have to tell guys in the BGGT to stop bashing black women?

Trust me, I have a very good memory. Excelsior and Fortis struggle with being rejected by black women for not being "black" enough, yet attack white guys for struggling with white women who reject them for black men.

Do you not see the parallels there?

No, I don't. I don't understand how most of what you wrote up there is even relevant.

Here, once again, is the core of the discussion here:
I do not make a habit of implying that women who look like me who get with men who do not look like me are inherently dirty, broken women who ruined by virtue of that association.

My personal struggles with many individual black women do not have an impact on this. I've been told by some black women straight to my face that they could never see themselves with a black man. That has not lead me to imply that every black woman who dates white men is somehow defective or dirty, or necessarily even hostile to black men. Nothing about the way black women have treated me has any impact on my point of view, which is as follows: I do not think a black woman is inherently defective for getting with a man who does not look like me. I am not going to label her as such if I see her getting with a man who does not look like me. I am not going to allow any historical socio-cultural patterns associated with men who look like said non-black man impact that judgement either, because he is an individual.

The question is this: are you willing to extend that same treatment to me?

If you like to throw terms like "coalburner" and "mudshark" around all the time, the answer is almost certainly no. If that is the case, I have a problem with you. Don't try to shake my hand.
If you're willing to go out of your way to rationalize and defend those who express such an attitude (instead of calling the fuckery for what it is and just squashing it), we also probably have an issue and are not going to be cool.

All of this talk about "struggling" with racial identity and whatever else you wrote up there is perplexing to me because, frankly, it's got nothing to do with the topic at hand. I am not talking about your struggle with your racial identity or my struggle with mine. I am talking about your willingness to judge me as an individual and abstain from insulting me by implying that any woman who goes near me is defective. I'm telling you that I am not going to call a woman dirty or broken for associating with you merely because you do not look like me and she does. I am asking you to treat me the same way, and I am saying that if you do not, we're not cool. That is all this is about.

Once again: this is not that complicated.

Quote:But don't bullshit me. Either we all show each other respect as men, or there's nothing to talk about.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Post: #170

Excelsior just nuked this whole entire thread, i really am curious what the raionalists will come up with next

Post: #171

That was a hell of a read, I'll be back after the gym for this.

Post: #172

Sometimes I don't respond because other people put the ideas that are in my head much better in writing than I ever could. Case in point everything E said.

Post: #173

^lemme give it a shit...i mean shot.




um....

and this is my favorite....i am sure this thread has this.



this is too "deep forum"ish for me. Does this conversation belong there?

Post: #174

Well said, Excelsior.

Sadly, many of the guys here will try and weasel the conversation back to how we're trying to stop them from discussion white-man issues. Didn't realize being allowed to say "coalburner" and "mudshark" was so important to some white men on this forum.

Post: #175

(08-29-2016 06:47 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  The term "coal burner" (or mudshark or its variants) is specifically designed to imply that a white woman who engages in romantic contact with any black male is dirty, damaged, ruined, or otherwise deformed by virtue of said contact. The term as it is typically used applies generally to such contact and makes no exceptions or allowances for the character, disposition, or other personal traits associated with the black male in question. It is designed to shame white women who engage in romantic contact with such men by impressing upon them that they will be viewed as dirty, broken women for doing so. This belief is quite widespread in the United States, hence the general stigma surrounding these relationships and the prevalence of terms like "coal burner".

The term "yellow fever" merely describes a white male with a strong attraction to Asian women. The term does not imply that said men are dirty, damaged, or otherwise deformed by virtue of this attraction and the contact resulting from it. It does not imply and is not commonly used to imply that the woman who engages in such contact with said white male is dirty, damaged, ruined, or otherwise deformed by such contact. It does not imply that the male in question is deformed for having an attraction to said women or acting on that attraction. This is reflective of the fact that there is not such a widely held belief in this society that men and women who engage in white male/asian female unions are dirty, broken, ruined, or otherwise defective and inferior in any way. (A sister term, "jungle fever", functions in pretty much exactly the same way with regard to white male attraction to black women - similarly, stigmas surrounding those involved in such unions are lacking and neither party is widely considered "dirty" or "ruined" for having acted upon their attraction).

So yellow has no racist connotation and neither does jungle. Also having caught an illness by acting on those sexual inclinations is no big deal. You come off as young, inexperienced, and overly sensitive.

There is no blow back for dating an Asian girl as a white guy?

Obvious you haven't been a white guy. White girls have told me several times they think white any guy dating an Asian chick is a fetish weirdo and has something wrong with them.

I'd still say a good half of white people in general or more think if you are a white guy dating an Asian chick you have some sort of perv pedo lust for younger looking and acting girls or that you are a fetish guy.

You know why yellow fever has no power?

We don't give it any we laugh at it. And the reason white / Asian relations works so well is because the white guys doing it don't give a fuck about people that get on them about it.

Like I said before all the racial slurs against white people could be very hurtful, we don't give them any power. If some black guy at a bar calls me a cracka or white trash I would laugh in his face.

I would laugh even harder if I was with a black chick and he called her a crackin' snowblower. I'd say yeah she is the best one I've ever seen, you black guys can't handle your own women I guess, maybe I can give you some tips yo'.

Black people have to have the courage and come out and admit they give words too much power for way too long.

Have a Gorilla Mindset.

Look at how much energy you spent typing out that Bible of self defense about sensitivity. The biggest fuckery is how much you care about all this.

Have a joint and get on with your life.