Black Culture Discussion Thread

It is kinda funny how she threw Ye under the bus real quick. :lol:

Trump definitely owns her *** now.

Watch if Kamala Harris gets the nomination in 2020, and Kim wanna play cute and endorse her, Trump gonna have the ammo to check her real quick.

Like you didn't have that same energy when you were begging me to free your homie in 2018.

But Trump found a good finesse. Dude is actively destroying civil rights enforcement in America, stacking the courts with hostile judges, attacking the lil bit of the social safety net that is left, but he gonna use these pardons to tell black folk "look all I have done for you"

The biscuit boys gonna echo that narrative and low info voters are gonna eat it up
 
Last edited:
It is kinda funny how she threw Ye under the bus real quick. :lol:

Trump definitely owns her *** now.

Watch if Kamala Harris gets the nomination in 2020, and Kim wanna play cute and endorse her, Trump gonna have the ammo to check her real quick.

Like you didn't have that same energy when you were begging me to free your homie in 2018.

But Trump found a good finesse. Dude is actively destroying civil rights enforcement in America, stacking the courts with hostile judges, attacking the lil bit of the social safety net that is left, but he gonna use these pardons to tell black folk "look all I have done for you"

The biscuit boys gonna echo that narrative and low info voters are gonna eat it up

firstly she definitely hung ye out to dry there unnecessarily or maybe necessarily depending on one's perspective on the current incarnation of yeezus...

but can i interrogate this line of thinking a bit:

Trump definitely owns her *** now.

Watch if Kamala Harris gets the nomination in 2020, and Kim wanna play cute and endorse her, Trump gonna have the ammo to check her real quick.

Like you didn't have that same energy when you were begging me to free your homie in 2018.

why didn't she finesse him? granted she did not come close to articulating any real defense to the question...been thinking about this type of rationale in the aftermath/wake of the nba finals and the criticism both lebron & kd are getting, obviously there are valid critiques of the decisions they both made that in turn makes the increased scrutiny of the character(s) seem more valid, but it doesn't follow for me. while of course circumstance & stakes with this kardashian thing are different but framed just from the point of achieving a goal i think it parallels.

basically it is saying one should not avail one's self of every reasonable method (which may entail making some concession to forming some [lasting or even temporary] coalition with an adversary) to try to be in the best position to accomplish a goal, if the perception of doing will be negative or potentially be leveraged negatively in the future? it would require presumption(s), but assuming that the intention is genuine & not cynical, why should she be worried about how trump uses this moment (similarly why should lbj of kd, preference perception over their goal[?]) if it indeed could result in the success of her mission, it doesn't necessarily follow that because she met with him she should somehow be complicit in some way with his agenda...

on a completely unrelated note, just booked a flight to the country of my parents origin...going to be my 1st time touching that continent, really looking forward to it!!!
 
California Man Found Guilty In 1997 Rape, Murder of 7-Year-Old Black Girl Asks for Parole

StrohmeyerIverson-324x160.jpg


Twenty-one years after the brutal rape and murder of 7-year-old Sherrice Iverson, attorneys for her killer are asking that their client be paroled.

Jeremy Strohmeyer was 18 years old when he confessed to molesting Iverson and choking her to death inside a bathroom stall at the Las Vegas Primadonna Casino, now called the Primm Valley Resort, in May 1997, Fox 5 Vegas reported. Police found the little girl raped and murdered in one of the handicap stalls.
 
firstly she definitely hung ye out to dry there unnecessarily or maybe necessarily depending on one's perspective on the current incarnation of yeezus...

but can i interrogate this line of thinking a bit:

Trump definitely owns her *** now.

Watch if Kamala Harris gets the nomination in 2020, and Kim wanna play cute and endorse her, Trump gonna have the ammo to check her real quick.

Like you didn't have that same energy when you were begging me to free your homie in 2018.

why didn't she finesse him? granted she did not come close to articulating any real defense to the question...been thinking about this type of rationale in the aftermath/wake of the nba finals and the criticism both lebron & kd are getting, obviously there are valid critiques of the decisions they both made that in turn makes the increased scrutiny of the character(s) seem more valid, but it doesn't follow for me. while of course circumstance & stakes with this kardashian thing are different but framed just from the point of achieving a goal i think it parallels.

basically it is saying one should not avail one's self of every reasonable method (which may entail making some concession to forming some [lasting or even temporary] coalition with an adversary) to try to be in the best position to accomplish a goal, if the perception of doing will be negative or potentially be leveraged negatively in the future? it would require presumption(s), but assuming that the intention is genuine & not cynical, why should she be worried about how trump uses this moment (similarly why should lbj of kd, preference perception over their goal[?]) if it indeed could result in the success of her mission, it doesn't necessarily follow that because she met with him she should somehow be complicit in some way with his agenda...

on a completely unrelated note, just booked a flight to the country of my parents origin...going to be my 1st time touching that continent, really looking forward to it!!!
Let me be honest, I really don't see how you got all of that from my comment.

-If Kim K or anyone else wants to go ask for a favor from Trump, go ahead, but realize what you are getting into. If you want to risk being used as the PR tool for the man, cool, your choice. But it is a risk because look at how many people have made the same pilgrimage and got nothing. Kim felt it worth it go ask Trump for help, ok, but she and everyone else must be willing to own whatever positive or negative consequences that come with it.

-If you noticed during the primary this is exactly how Trump attacked some of his Republican critics, especially Mitt Romney. He basically said that they didn't have the same energy when they were begging him for campaign donations. That they didn't find him repugnant when they need something from him. Now he has Kim K in a similar position. Kim K has supported the last few Democratic nominees for president. If she does so again and upsets Trump in the process, I'm just pointing out the likely criticisms of her Trump would have.

I don't see how this is some line of thinking that stretches from sports to politics. I am just saying history will repeat itself with Trump if need be. He will do to her what he has done to many others if he feels slighted.

-Second I never asserted that Kim would be complicit in Trump's buffoonery. My point about the pardons is how will use them as a political strategy to win over some black voters. That point is separate from the point I am making about Kim.
 
Last edited:
Let me be honest, I really don't see how you got all of that from my comment.

I don't see how this is some line of thinking that stretches from sports to politics. I am just saying history will repeat itself with Trump if need be. He will do to her what he has done to many others if he feels slighted.

-Second I never asserted that Kim would be complicit in Trump's buffoonery. My point about the pardons is how will use them as a political strategy to win over some black voters. That point is separate from the point I am making about Kim.

maybe i'm reaching, as to how it connects to kd (and lebron before him), it seems like that main the criticism they are both getting is in relation to both supposedly nakedly chasing 'easy' championships; that the negative perception:

1) it should have deterred them from teaming up to form 'super teams' to reach their goal(s)
2) that they are somehow lesser for doing so
3) that it will be used against them in the argument for their respective achievements going forward, and in the case of lebron especifically, who has openly said he is chasing that mj goat status

it may not be that similar, but the parallel seems to me to be that the knowledge of how their action(s) in pursuit of a seemingly natural goal (players want to win championships---i guess it would be interesting to know why kim k chose this person/issue to get involved with) will likely be used against them needs to be so considered? it feels as though you (or the general consensus) are sort of implying that what she did was bad or that the possibility that trump could use this 'against' her should be of any concern to what she is trying to accomplish or deter that goal...i mean as far as we know there was nothing immoral or unjust about them meeting?

if you don't believe she would be complicit, is it that you are saying that trump could somehow politically make her so? wouldn't people implicitly understand she went to him because that is what situation required? why would she need have 'the same energy' in 2020? if he did try to politicize it, wouldn't that be just politics? i would think that the endorsing whoever the democratic candidate is then would involve big'ing that person up rather than trying to tear trump down (though i suppose that goes against the popular wisdom of effectiveness of negative campaigning)

tho i just could just be scattered brained on this and connecting disparate strands of things...#itsaregularoccurrence
 
i hear u, potentially is right

then theres this to think about too



Yeah the high asking donation price, along with the fact that there isnt even any property involved yet is making me hold back on this. I would love for this to work but I just can drop $500 with what the info they gave us so far. Hopefully they'll clear some things up soon.
 
Yeah the high asking donation price, along with the fact that there isnt even any property involved yet is making me hold back on this. I would love for this to work but I just can drop $500 with what the info they gave us so far. Hopefully they'll clear some things up soon.

this is semi related to ur comment

They aren't donors.

Nobody is donating anything...everyone is a shareholder. Shareholders will be entitled to 49.9% of the business, and he and his business partners will have the other 50.1. He has already made a ton of money for his people whether or not the real estate venture(s) ever make money.

It's important we learn about these types of things. Not calling it a scam, not passing judgment, but we gotta learn that none of this business **** is charity. People may lose money or not make a ton of money from their stakes, and they are going to be mad because he and his team will be millionaires before a single property is closed on. Read the fine print. If you are ok with investing after that then...

Whats even worse is he is only talking about putting in only 10k of his "own" money while taking 50% of any profit down the line. Considering he is taking little to no risk 50% profit is insane and unfair to investors. They also take a 5.5% management fee off the top so at 10 million, which they almost are at right now thats $550,000 per year he will pocket no questions asked from the investors money with no guarantee of profit for investors. His 10k pledge looks funny in the light when he knows he got 550k per year already in his pocket.

And if they reach the 50 million goal thats a cool 2.75 milly per year in guaranteed profit from the management fee alone. Considering he has taken 0 risks and no money invested himself this is a great hustle.



 
Last edited:
Man so what do yall think about the Tulsa Real Estate Fund?

It's funny how yall have more words about Kin Kardahsian than something potentially positive that was posted.

what is there to say really??? all investment requires exposure to risk my g, individuals gotta decide for themselves and consider & manage their own appetite for their exposure to that risk; i’m not super up on or interested in giving others financial advice or real estate nor do i think it prudent to comment on things that i haven’t done at least some of the knowledge on...
 
Last edited:
Forgotten Victims: Ground-Penetrating Radar In Hunt for At Least 30 African-Americans Killed In 1887 Racial Massacre

AP18137624647703-600x391.jpg


Researchers searching for a possible mass grave from a racial massacre in 1887 said they picked up signals last month of disturbed earth at a south Louisiana site, but they cautioned they don’t know yet what ground-penetrating radar detected.

The signals were detected Thursday, May 17, the first day of a survey of a vacant lot in the community of Thibodaux, where locals believe white mobs dumped the bodies of African-Americans killed during a Reconstruction-era rampage. The mobs were out to break a monthlong strike by sugar plantation field hands, many of them ex-slaves, in the era following the American civil war.

Events in 1887 began with striking sugar workers demanding a raise. According to DeSantis, they also wanted cash payment, instead of the chits they received for use only in a plantation company store. As tensions soared, a judge declared martial law in Thibodaux. When violence finally erupted on Nov. 23, 1887, white mobs went door-to-door for more than two hours shooting unarmed blacks, according to DeSantis.
 
Back
Top Bottom