Sunday, March 25, 2012

Parenting Blue

The following is my comment, awaiting moderation, to Steven over at Blogging Blue who wonders about his now three year old black son's safety in light of the Trayvon Martin death:

Steven, you worry about your son as all decent parents do. And his race may well contribute to different treatment from others, sometimes good treatment, sometimes not. My suggestion is that, over time, educate your son – explain to him that, unfortunately, people sometimes make assumptions about others based on what should be irrelevant characteristics. And that there is nothing whatsoever he can do about other people’s irrationality. As such, he should not dwell or obsess about others real or perceived attitudes towards him, as this will lead to a dead end of bitterness and excuse making. Rather, he should focus on his own development and decency. He may win over some who are obsessed with his blackness, some he may not. But again, its their problem, not his. It is true and unfortunate that he may be treated poorly by some, but then, who is always treated perfectly? People discriminate all the time. As a shorter man, I, now happily married, sometimes jokingly note that nearly all women are heightists, ie, they won’t date someone shorter. It would be foolhardy for me to claim victim status and set out to end this discrimination. Now I am not equating racism with heightism except to suggest that one should not dwell on something that you have no control over. And lastly, I would suggest that you not react hysterically to the Trayvon story any more that you should swear off flying after a plane accident. You cited statistics stating that a black boy is more likely to be shot by a white person that a white boy is. Perhaps true but as a parent I trust you don’t have a preference about who is to shoot your son, rather, you just don’t want him shot, period. As such, you might want to look into just who it is that is shooting the most black boys. Hint, it isn’t white people. And some day, your son will need to try to understand why violence is more of a problem, statistically speaking, among black people here in America. And here, unfortunately, I suspect you will fail your child.

27 comments:

Nemo said...

Good stuff. I've been pulling on the beards of the pretentious coffee house types at Blogging Blue for a thread now. They are fun to converse with. I haven't had any comment destroyed by the moderation and I see your comment also made it up. It reminds me of the best of kays's before she realized her ideas fail when scrutinized and closed the site to critics. Looking forward to reading more Denis at the Blue.

Denis Navratil said...

I was most amused as always with your beard pulling.

Nemo said...

Thanks, I was hoping that they would engage your comment, allowing you to run further afield with it. Oh well.

Sean Cranley said...

Nemo, your ideas have NEVER stood up when scrutinized and that is NOT why Kay shut her site down. It's not closed to critics, it's inactive.

Sean Cranley said...

Nemo, your ideas have NEVER stood up when scrutinized and that is NOT why Kay shut her site down. It's not closed to critics, it's inactive.

Nemo said...

sean, my old friend, three things in no particular order:

1) Can you name one idea [of mine] that has not stood up to scrutiny? (*Nemo crosses fingers* *repeats* Please say AGW, please say AGW,...)

2) Did you mean to repeat that last post to emphasize twice the projection and half the reason? Very clever. Heh.

3) I liked to check kay's annually to see if I'm still banished (banished I tells ya, heh). Currently, the message "This blog is open to invited readers only" comes up. I could be described as a critic of much of what she posts. I am also among those that are not invited. Now I know that this might tax your limited reasoning skills, but if you look at those last few sentences you could come to the conclusion that blue racine is closed to critic. I bet I could find at least one other banished and uninvited soul, so lets extend than conclusion to critics.

Ta-da. (heh)

Anonymous said...

Nemo - you have as much proof of more than one person banned from the "**** you you no good ****wad ****" site as you do of any form of vote fraud. Quick - prove that that rainstorm the other day had even a single raindrop. Hah! I won again!

Nemo said...

Anon, heh!

Sean Cranley said...

Nemo, First of all Kay's site is just plain inactive and that's all there is to it.

Secondly, I've got better things to do than search here (KBR is unavailable) for examples of your errant dreck. So why don't you give us a new example of one of your brilliant brain convulsions. Then I can shoot it full of holes while you do your denial dance also known as the moving target shuffle.

Nemo said...

Challenge accepted sean. Back in mid February Denis posted about the "Porters project" and how it is clearly unfair for government to play favorites. I agree, playing favorites like this can be problematic. Crony capitalism(currently pronounced "green energy program"), is mostly destructive and amoral.

Refute away!

(sean, I believe the word you are looking for is "uncle". Heh)

-Nemo, not a member of a anarcho-syndicalist commune

Sean Cranley said...

Nemo, Nemo, Nemo . . . sigh.

First of all the challenge was for YOU to put forth a "new example of one of YOUR brilliant brain convulsions", not one of the opinions of Denis ("I'm not old.") Navratil. Have trouble following directions much?

And secondly, one might have expected EVEN YOU to do a little due diligence ahead of time and actually look and see if/what I posted in response to that entry by Denis.

You can go and ruefully look now at what I said. I'll just leave you with Denis' response to my first comment; "Sean and I agree on something!!!!!! Do I dare spoil the moment and note that the offenders at city hall are Democrats? Of course, but it is good to know that Sean recognizes the problem of crony capitalism."

Daa-aance, dance little Nemo Daa-aance!

Anonymous said...

So does Seany have a Ph.D. in Parenting Teach Your Children Lefty Ideology from Gateway Technical College or is it an online degree from Timbuktu State University?

Nemo said...

sean, sean, sean...

Let's review. sean made the claim that my ideas have NEVER stood up when scrutinized. Then, after not finding an example, challenged me to come up with a new idea so he could knock it down. It is obvious to note that the "new" part of the sean request is a clumsy deflection from her first statement, so I won't mention it to spare sean the embarrassment.

Given these parameters, a logical trap would be easy to construct. All I had to do is find an argument that sean agreed with and I had not commented on (so it would be new from me). This would give sean a choice, he could contradict his past statements or he could contradict his current statement. Instead, a ponderously slow, ideologically unclean mind foggily realized that he had made that same argument before and missed the ramifications of me tossing it back at him.

At this point, I'll admit to be at a loss. How to you teach someone who does not have the mental resources to understand? I suppose I could just repeat the lesson over and over in the hope that it might slowly sink in. I personally find the thoughtless nature of such chanting as a waste of time, but it does seem to be the preferred method of communication of the left (Have we just stumbled on why that is?).

Sean Cranley said...

Well as I predicted, the Nemo shuffle begins. I have to say though, those are some serious hoofin gyrations even for Nemo.

Nemo opened a window into the smallness of his mind by thinking he could insult me by referring to me using a female pronoun. Pathetic.

But you gotta love how he, at the same time, arrives at a ridiculus conlusion about one of my statements and then says he won't mention it, as he's mentioning it, because it might embarrass me (it doesn't) when of course that's his whole goal, embarrassment and deflection. So not only has he failed in all his goals, embarrasment, providing a defendable example of his own thinking and opinion AND deflecting attention from the same, but he has provided a perfect example of the low grade of intellectual integrity which is his hallmark.

When you come up with an argument of your own making Nemo, old or new, I don't care, let me know. But I grow weary of watching your dance, it's off beat, clumsy and quite frankly you just don't have the legs for it.

Nemo said...

Translation : "Uncle". Heh.

Sean Cranley said...

fail

Nemo said...

sean, your last reply was ambiguous. In the past, you have almost always included some sort of personal attack on the person you were addressing. It has become a de facto rule I use while reading your comments. If the addressed person is not in goosestep with your ideas they earn an unkind word or three.

So, was your last post here some sort of self referencing comment on your ability to deal with the trap set for you or was it something else. If it is directed at me and you have been too taxed here to come up with a seanism, you could use the template Sir Anon provided near the top of this thread. Heh.

Sean Cranley said...

Your "trap" failed Nemo. I agreed with Denis in the first place and did not change my position, when his post brought up again by you. Why would I? I still agree with Denis on that point.

You've also failed to bring up a argument or point of your own making to defend. So you're doing the Nemo Obfuscation Dance (NOD) to divert attention from your inability and your lack of integrity. You see if you had integrity, you could be direct and forthright with no need to do the weave and NOD.

And speaking of NOD, I grow weary of your pathetic little games. Bye now.

Nemo said...

sean, you're so close. Your original statement made the claim that my ideas have NEVER stood up when scrutinized. I then posted an idea that I knew that you agreed with and invited you to disprove it. You lose.

The "new" thing is just a layer of obfuscation to cover the foolishness of your first (and repeated) statement. I like a challenge (some would say 'then why are you debating sean?' and I would reply 'challenges come in all sizes, some large, some small and some very small'), so let's add the "new" parameter to your original statement.

New claim: sean in an incredible hypocrite.

Proof: President obama claims he can (and did) kill Americans who may be a threat to the country without trial or any other semblance of due process. A few years back, sean spewed posts and comments excoriating then President Bush for his enhanced interrogation techniques on non-citizen combatants. I have yet to see a single post by sean decrying President obama's assassination of American citizens policy. sean is acting in contradiction to his stated beliefs. sean is a hypocrite, QED.

You lose. Again. Heh.

Sean Cranley said...

Wow, look at'em go! You can hardly see Nemos's little feet they're dancin so fast!

A: It wasn't YOUR idea Nemo, it was Denis'.

B: Now you're trying to change the subject away from from your abject failure.

C: You're a GOPocrit because you never said a word against Bushyboy's torture program, but now you're complaining about Obama killing a terrorist leader who incited the fort Hood Shooter and the Underwear Bomber, a terrorist who presented a continuing and immanent threat to the United States and who could not be aprehended.

Do I find this issue sticky and of deep concern? Yeah, especially when the next Republicon gets in office and wants to prove he's big man. But I'm glad this particular guy is dead. No bones about it.

Nemo said...

We can skip A and B. You don't seem to understand that two or more people can have the same ideas.

Let's explore 'C'. I didn't have a problem with President Bush's enhanced interrogation techniques, nor do I have a problem with President obama's assassination of American citizens without trial or any other semblance of due process policy. It's called consistency, the opposite of hypocrisy. We elect them to do a job, they have more information than we do. We have to trust them.

Your 'D' answer is interesting. So you have no problems with torture or murder per se, your concern comes if you feel the tortured or murdered are not good people. I was not aware that you thought that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was such a swell guy. Good to know. So will you be displaying the scarlet 'H' on your forehead for all to see or will the tattoo be as well hidden as your ethics?

Sean Cranley said...

You make no sense whatsoever.

Nemo said...

Translation : "Uncle". Heh.

Sean Cranley said...

That doesn't make any sense either.

Nemo said...

It can be hard to present even moderately complex thoughts and ideas using short simple words so that even the most "special" among us can understand. The problem is that if the vocabulary is restricted to monosyllabic grunts, subtlety and nuance is often lost. Follow me so far sean? Ring the cowbell once for yes, twice for no. Heh.

Sean Cranley said...

Here we see Nemo distilled down to his essential nature, with an overt exhibition of his lack of integrity. Having failed utterly to contend in the realm of debate he resorts to petty lies about my intelligence as a diversionary tactic.

It's a very weak and revealing defence strategy, but it's all that's left to him.

Nemo said...

Was that one ding or two? Heh.