Fox's Brian Kilmeade Asks Black Co-host If She Makes Kool-Aid

[LoneLaugher]

i do not trust you.

You distrust makes no sense. Her story is completely believable. Your distrust is also very self serving.

And you are a self admitted jerk.

If you trusted me....I'd have to go get checked out.

Hmmmm. A self admitted jerk? That's a new one. I'm an asshole. But....only when it's appropriate. You know......like when I meet white supremacists. Especially the ones who won't admit it.

I certainly hope you continue having a wonderful evening.

Bull.

Her story, ie that she had a guest who couldn't drink soda, was completely believable.

You have not explained your reason that you find her story unbelievable.

Because your reason is that you don't want to believe it, because it contradicts your pre arrived at conclusions.

Yes, you are an asshole. And you are a poor judge of when it is called for, as demonstrated by you calling someone a liar for claiming to have had a guest that could not drink soda.

For you.

She has had complications due to a stomach surgery and can't drink carbonated drinks. And she didn't want water. She settled for a bottle of water and one of those single serve Koolaid packets.

He can believe me or not. But you are right he is upset that his thread went south.

Bullshit.

She even keeps single serve Koolaid packets in her desk at work. Shhhhh.

Of course she does. Who doesn't?

 

[Correll]

Bull.

Her story, ie that she had a guest who couldn't drink soda, was completely believable.

You have not explained your reason that you find her story unbelievable.

Because your reason is that you don't want to believe it, because it contradicts your pre arrived at conclusions.

Yes, you are an asshole. And you are a poor judge of when it is called for, as demonstrated by you calling someone a liar for claiming to have had a guest that could not drink soda.

For you.

Z

Did you read the comment that I made which prompted her to tell me that little story? If you had...you'd know that her story doesn't contradict anything that I have said. That is especially true when you consider that she made it up entirely.

I wonder if you are willing to admit that you are an asshole as well? Is there an honest bone in that body of yours?

Her story is far more credible than your doubt.

I am not an asshole. I am a very nice person. I am only rude to people that richly deserve it, like you.

Fail.

NOpe. Her story is completely credible. No reasonable person would doubt it and only an asshole would accuse her of being a liar.

I am a nice person. ON the rare occasions when libs can behave like civilized people, you can see threads where I am completely polite and civil to them in return.

You? You can only be not an asshole for a little while before your natural character shows itself.

THe only Fail here is yours.

Of course. Ask anyone here. You are a gem of a guy. Real nice. Nobody would ever think you were an asshole.

Or you could be aware of threads where I have be able to engage others who have been polite and returned the favor with pleasure.

But instead you Appeal to the Mob.

Typical LIb. Why trust your own senses when you can defer to what other people tell you? Especially when it is what you want to hear.

 

[BlueGin]

If you trusted me....I'd have to go get checked out.

Hmmmm. A self admitted jerk? That's a new one. I'm an asshole. But....only when it's appropriate. You know......like when I meet white supremacists. Especially the ones who won't admit it.

I certainly hope you continue having a wonderful evening.

Bull.

Her story, ie that she had a guest who couldn't drink soda, was completely believable.

You have not explained your reason that you find her story unbelievable.

Because your reason is that you don't want to believe it, because it contradicts your pre arrived at conclusions.

Yes, you are an asshole. And you are a poor judge of when it is called for, as demonstrated by you calling someone a liar for claiming to have had a guest that could not drink soda.

For you.

She has had complications due to a stomach surgery and can't drink carbonated drinks. And she didn't want water. She settled for a bottle of water and one of those single serve Koolaid packets.

He can believe me or not. But you are right he is upset that his thread went south.

Bullshit.

She even keeps single serve Koolaid packets in her desk at work. Shhhhh.

Of course she does. Who doesn't?

Are the Hawaiian punch,Crush and Flavor Aid packets racist too? Or just Koolaid?

 

[Correll]

If you trusted me....I'd have to go get checked out.

Hmmmm. A self admitted jerk? That's a new one. I'm an asshole. But....only when it's appropriate. You know......like when I meet white supremacists. Especially the ones who won't admit it.

I certainly hope you continue having a wonderful evening.

Bull.

Her story, ie that she had a guest who couldn't drink soda, was completely believable.

You have not explained your reason that you find her story unbelievable.

Because your reason is that you don't want to believe it, because it contradicts your pre arrived at conclusions.

Yes, you are an asshole. And you are a poor judge of when it is called for, as demonstrated by you calling someone a liar for claiming to have had a guest that could not drink soda.

For you.

She has had complications due to a stomach surgery and can't drink carbonated drinks. And she didn't want water. She settled for a bottle of water and one of those single serve Koolaid packets.

He can believe me or not. But you are right he is upset that his thread went south.

Bullshit.

She even keeps single serve Koolaid packets in her desk at work. Shhhhh.

Of course she does. Who doesn't?

Lots of people do stuff like that. Have you ever worked in an office?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

It is stereotype of blind following, but that was obviously NOT the intention of Brian in this incident.

Doesn't matter.

White people need to be aware of every last possible stereotype that might offend the PC Police. Please note: It doesn't actually have to offend black people, all that matters is that the PC Police SAY that it does or might or could.

Once you have compiled a list of potential stereotypes, please submit it to the PC Police for review and approval.

Please keep this list with you at all times, and refer to it before you say, uh, anything. To anyone. Ever.

You will comply, or there will be "consequences".
.

.
Political correctness is unAmerican. So is Black studies, women's studies, gay studies and any study that scapegoats white people for the purpose of blaming white people for every perceived ill. It's all part of Critical Theory a scheme thought up by Marxist communists to bring American Society down.
I will never be politically correct. I won't be needlessly insulting to blacks or Muslims, but I won't kiss their ass either. I call them as I see them.

 

[Esmeralda]

Somehow this is not getting through --- if one has to "research" something -- then it's not a stereotype.
A stereotype has to be commonly known.
This is not. There's a vast difference between an obscure factoid you can find in Google, and a commonly-known idiom.

You can't insult someone using an obscurity. You need your target to understand the same obscurity, plus any bystanders you're appealing to. Kilmeade apparently either asked a clumsy question that had to do with nothing, or he attempted a clumsy racial slur that few people would even get. From the looks on the faces in the video it doesn't look like anybody got it as such.

Well then. That's it. You haven't heard of it.....so it doesn't exist. Got it.

No, and we already went through this -- it's not that >I< never heard of it -- it's that few people have. It's a matter of degree. Again, look at the comments even on the MediaMatters site from the OP link, as well as numerous posters here.

I'm sure if we looked hard enough we could find evidence that cracking one's knuckles is offensive to Polish Zoroastrian lefthanded pet owners, but that doesn't make it a "thing".

Do you believe me when I tell you that I have known for a long time that a taste for Koolaid is a black stereotype? Straight up yes or no answer.

Sorry LL, didn't see this post before. Of course I have no reason to doubt you, but the question isn't whether you've heard of it or I haven't, but whether it's "widely known" in the general public per the definition. And from all indications, it isn't. If it were, there wouldn't be this many people expressing bewilderment at it.

I am willing to admit that not as many people know of this stereotype as I would have thought. Are you willing to admit that more people than you would have thought do know about it?

What I think is you are making a big deal out of nothing. Logically, if you think about it, it doesn't make the least bit of sense for this guy to say a racial slur to his colleage on national television. Logically, if you think about it reasonably, which you aren't doing because you want to make this a big issue of racism. Like most of the general public at large, this guy probably had no idea that Kool-Aid was linked to the black culture in any way. That's the logical conclusion.

I think it is really a bad thing to try to make something racial when it isn't. It demeans real racial issues. It's like women claiming rape or abuse when there isn't any: it demeans those who have righteous cause to claim rape or abuse. You are not doing blacks or those who oppose racism any favors with a thread like this.

 

[Esmeralda]

It is stereotype of blind following, but that was obviously NOT the intention of Brian in this incident.

Doesn't matter.

White people need to be aware of every last possible stereotype that might offend the PC Police. Please note: It doesn't actually have to offend black people, all that matters is that the PC Police SAY that it does or might or could.

Once you have compiled a list of potential stereotypes, please submit it to the PC Police for review and approval.

Please keep this list with you at all times, and refer to it before you say, uh, anything. To anyone. Ever.

You will comply, or there will be "consequences".
.

.
Political correctness is unAmerican. So is Black studies, women's studies, gay studies and any study that scapegoats white people for the purpose of blaming white people for every perceived ill. It's all part of Critical Theory a scheme thought up by Marxist communists to bring American Society down.
I will never be politically correct. I won't be needlessly insulting to blacks or Muslims, but I won't kiss their ass either. I call them as I see them.

How the hell does 'women's studies' scapegoat white people? Most of the 'people' taking women's studies courses are white. I took both courses in university. Neither one attacked or persecuted whites. They were informative, like reading biographies of black leaders and literature written by women, which was often left out of general literature courses or general history courses.

And as you most likely never took such courses, you would not know that neither black studies nor women's studies put whites and/or white men in a bad light just because they are white or men. In fact, the courses simply covered material that is not typically covered in other courses. But you are too ignorant to know that as you simply dismiss such courses due to your personal biases.

Your tone and rhetoric clearly indicate bias and anger at anything you don't want to think about or hear. You make it pretty clear you don't like women and gays, and you don't like anyone who isn't white. You can scream all you want that isn't true, but your own post makes it quite clear. Claiming 'women's studies' is against whites? Seriously? And how does gay studies, if such a thing even exists, scapegoat white people when the majority of gay's, especially in the West where such courses would be most prevalent, are white as well?

Women's studies, gay studies---scapegoating white people? Seriously, you do not have any logical or critical thinking skills, only anger and bias.

You need to post this: "It's all part of Critical Theory a scheme thought up by Marxist communists to bring American Society down." in the conspiracy forum: that's where it belongs.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

It is stereotype of blind following, but that was obviously NOT the intention of Brian in this incident.

Doesn't matter.

White people need to be aware of every last possible stereotype that might offend the PC Police. Please note: It doesn't actually have to offend black people, all that matters is that the PC Police SAY that it does or might or could.

Once you have compiled a list of potential stereotypes, please submit it to the PC Police for review and approval.

Please keep this list with you at all times, and refer to it before you say, uh, anything. To anyone. Ever.

You will comply, or there will be "consequences".
.

.
Political correctness is unAmerican. So is Black studies, women's studies, gay studies and any study that scapegoats white people for the purpose of blaming white people for every perceived ill. It's all part of Critical Theory a scheme thought up by Marxist communists to bring American Society down.
I will never be politically correct. I won't be needlessly insulting to blacks or Muslims, but I won't kiss their ass either. I call them as I see them.

How the hell does 'women's studies' scapegoat white people? Most of the 'people' taking women's studies courses are white. I took both courses in university. Neither one attacked or persecuted whites. They were informative, like reading biographies of black leaders and literature written by women, which was often left out of general literature courses or general history courses. And as you most likely never took such courses, you would not know that neither black studies nor women's studies put whites and/or white men in a bad light just because they are white or men. In fact, the courses simple covered material that is not typically covered in other courses. But you are too ignorant to know that as you simply dismiss such courses due to your personal biases.

Your tone and rhetoric clearly indicate bias and anger at anything you don't want to think about or hear. You make it pretty clear you don't like women and you don't like anyone who isn't white. You can scream all you want that isn't true, but your own post makes it quite clear. Claiming 'women's studies' is against whites? Seriously? And how does gay studies, if such a thing even exists, scapegoat white people when the majority of gay's, especially in the West, where such courses would be most prevalent, are white as well?

Women's studies, gay studies---scapegoating white people? Seriously, you do not have any logical or critical thinking skills, only anger and bias.

You need to post this: "It's all part of Critical Theory a scheme thought up by Marxist communists to bring American Society down." in the conspiracy forum: that's where it belongs. What a wee little mind you have, poor thing.

You sure dead European white guys weren't brought up by your women's studies professor? I'll bet the term "sexist" was coined in a women's study classroom.

 

[Esmeralda]

It is stereotype of blind following, but that was obviously NOT the intention of Brian in this incident.

Doesn't matter.

White people need to be aware of every last possible stereotype that might offend the PC Police. Please note: It doesn't actually have to offend black people, all that matters is that the PC Police SAY that it does or might or could.

Once you have compiled a list of potential stereotypes, please submit it to the PC Police for review and approval.

Please keep this list with you at all times, and refer to it before you say, uh, anything. To anyone. Ever.

You will comply, or there will be "consequences".
.

.
Political correctness is unAmerican. So is Black studies, women's studies, gay studies and any study that scapegoats white people for the purpose of blaming white people for every perceived ill. It's all part of Critical Theory a scheme thought up by Marxist communists to bring American Society down.
I will never be politically correct. I won't be needlessly insulting to blacks or Muslims, but I won't kiss their ass either. I call them as I see them.

How the hell does 'women's studies' scapegoat white people? Most of the 'people' taking women's studies courses are white. I took both courses in university. Neither one attacked or persecuted whites. They were informative, like reading biographies of black leaders and literature written by women, which was often left out of general literature courses or general history courses. And as you most likely never took such courses, you would not know that neither black studies nor women's studies put whites and/or white men in a bad light just because they are white or men. In fact, the courses simple covered material that is not typically covered in other courses. But you are too ignorant to know that as you simply dismiss such courses due to your personal biases.

Your tone and rhetoric clearly indicate bias and anger at anything you don't want to think about or hear. You make it pretty clear you don't like women and you don't like anyone who isn't white. You can scream all you want that isn't true, but your own post makes it quite clear. Claiming 'women's studies' is against whites? Seriously? And how does gay studies, if such a thing even exists, scapegoat white people when the majority of gay's, especially in the West, where such courses would be most prevalent, are white as well?

Women's studies, gay studies---scapegoating white people? Seriously, you do not have any logical or critical thinking skills, only anger and bias.

You need to post this: "It's all part of Critical Theory a scheme thought up by Marxist communists to bring American Society down." in the conspiracy forum: that's where it belongs. What a wee little mind you have, poor thing.

You sure dead European white guys weren't brought up by your women's studies professor?

Such courses are not designed for or directed at changing historical fact or being derogatory toward anyone: they are there to add knowledge. Period. You wouldn't know because you never took such courses.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

It is stereotype of blind following, but that was obviously NOT the intention of Brian in this incident.

Doesn't matter.

White people need to be aware of every last possible stereotype that might offend the PC Police. Please note: It doesn't actually have to offend black people, all that matters is that the PC Police SAY that it does or might or could.

Once you have compiled a list of potential stereotypes, please submit it to the PC Police for review and approval.

Please keep this list with you at all times, and refer to it before you say, uh, anything. To anyone. Ever.

You will comply, or there will be "consequences".
.

.
Political correctness is unAmerican. So is Black studies, women's studies, gay studies and any study that scapegoats white people for the purpose of blaming white people for every perceived ill. It's all part of Critical Theory a scheme thought up by Marxist communists to bring American Society down.
I will never be politically correct. I won't be needlessly insulting to blacks or Muslims, but I won't kiss their ass either. I call them as I see them.

How the hell does 'women's studies' scapegoat white people? Most of the 'people' taking women's studies courses are white. I took both courses in university. Neither one attacked or persecuted whites. They were informative, like reading biographies of black leaders and literature written by women, which was often left out of general literature courses or general history courses. And as you most likely never took such courses, you would not know that neither black studies nor women's studies put whites and/or white men in a bad light just because they are white or men. In fact, the courses simple covered material that is not typically covered in other courses. But you are too ignorant to know that as you simply dismiss such courses due to your personal biases.

Your tone and rhetoric clearly indicate bias and anger at anything you don't want to think about or hear. You make it pretty clear you don't like women and you don't like anyone who isn't white. You can scream all you want that isn't true, but your own post makes it quite clear. Claiming 'women's studies' is against whites? Seriously? And how does gay studies, if such a thing even exists, scapegoat white people when the majority of gay's, especially in the West, where such courses would be most prevalent, are white as well?

Women's studies, gay studies---scapegoating white people? Seriously, you do not have any logical or critical thinking skills, only anger and bias.

You need to post this: "It's all part of Critical Theory a scheme thought up by Marxist communists to bring American Society down." in the conspiracy forum: that's where it belongs. What a wee little mind you have, poor thing.

You sure dead European white guys weren't brought up by your women's studies professor?

Such courses are not designed for or directed at changing historical fact or being derogatory toward anyone: they are there to add knowledge. Period. You wouldn't know because you never took such courses.

Taken from a Feminist studies course outline:

17: Resistance, Alliances, and Coalitions
WIC: Cherríe Moraga, 449-52
Peggy McIntosh, "White Privilege, Male Privilege," RDR
Blood, Tuttle, and Lakey, "Understanding and Fighting Sexism: A Call to Men," RDR
Bernice Johnson Reagon, "Coalition Politics" RDR
Audre Lorde, "The Masters Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House," RDR
RECOMMENDED WEB PAGES: "How Men Fit In," Third Wave

This is the crap being pushed in a critic of maleness: by a group of emasculated males no less.


"About Male Culture...
"It's not only that men have used violence to maintain power and control over women, children and other men. Men have learned to think of power as our ability to dominate and control the world, the people around us, and our own unruly emotions...we learn that to be a man means having some sort of power and control. Most men are not violent, but most of us feel we have to perform and be on top at least somewhere in our lives." - Michael Kaufman, Cracking the Armour

Would a White Studies Or Men's Studies course be accepted on any liberal University you knew of?

 

[Pogo]

Somehow this is not getting through --- if one has to "research" something -- then it's not a stereotype.
A stereotype has to be commonly known.
This is not. There's a vast difference between an obscure factoid you can find in Google, and a commonly-known idiom.

You can't insult someone using an obscurity. You need your target to understand the same obscurity, plus any bystanders you're appealing to. Kilmeade apparently either asked a clumsy question that had to do with nothing, or he attempted a clumsy racial slur that few people would even get. From the looks on the faces in the video it doesn't look like anybody got it as such.

Well then. That's it. You haven't heard of it.....so it doesn't exist. Got it.

No, and we already went through this -- it's not that >I< never heard of it -- it's that few people have. It's a matter of degree. Again, look at the comments even on the MediaMatters site from the OP link, as well as numerous posters here.

I'm sure if we looked hard enough we could find evidence that cracking one's knuckles is offensive to Polish Zoroastrian lefthanded pet owners, but that doesn't make it a "thing".

Do you believe me when I tell you that I have known for a long time that a taste for Koolaid is a black stereotype? Straight up yes or no answer.

Sorry LL, didn't see this post before. Of course I have no reason to doubt you, but the question isn't whether you've heard of it or I haven't, but whether it's "widely known" in the general public per the definition. And from all indications, it isn't. If it were, there wouldn't be this many people expressing bewilderment at it.

I am willing to admit that not as many people know of this stereotype as I would have thought. Are you willing to admit that more people than you would have thought do know about it?

I had never heard of it, so there is no number of people I thought would have known about it. I'm willing to admit it's an obscurity, but I've already noted that. But yes it does seem to exist, however obscure.

Regardless whether Kilmeade meant that implication or not, his question was just bizarre. Watching him before he speaks that line he's obviously feeling far out of place and it looks like he just blurted something out to justify his presence on camera, and when he did it just sounded really stupid, whether a stereotype or not. But my impression of their impressions is that they just thought it was a non sequitur out of left field -- I didn't get the sense that anybody thought it was a slur.

 

[Pogo]

Bull.

Her story, ie that she had a guest who couldn't drink soda, was completely believable.

You have not explained your reason that you find her story unbelievable.

Because your reason is that you don't want to believe it, because it contradicts your pre arrived at conclusions.

Yes, you are an asshole. And you are a poor judge of when it is called for, as demonstrated by you calling someone a liar for claiming to have had a guest that could not drink soda.

For you.

Z

Did you read the comment that I made which prompted her to tell me that little story? If you had...you'd know that her story doesn't contradict anything that I have said. That is especially true when you consider that she made it up entirely.

I wonder if you are willing to admit that you are an asshole as well? Is there an honest bone in that body of yours?

Her story is far more credible than your doubt.

I am not an asshole. I am a very nice person. I am only rude to people that richly deserve it, like you.

Fail.

NOpe. Her story is completely credible. No reasonable person would doubt it and only an asshole would accuse her of being a liar.

I am a nice person. ON the rare occasions when libs can behave like civilized people, you can see threads where I am completely polite and civil to them in return.

You? You can only be not an asshole for a little while before your natural character shows itself.

THe only Fail here is yours.

Of course. Ask anyone here. You are a gem of a guy. Real nice. Nobody would ever think you were an asshole.

Oh hell no. He's an asshole.

 

[Esmeralda]

Doesn't matter.

White people need to be aware of every last possible stereotype that might offend the PC Police. Please note: It doesn't actually have to offend black people, all that matters is that the PC Police SAY that it does or might or could.

Once you have compiled a list of potential stereotypes, please submit it to the PC Police for review and approval.

Please keep this list with you at all times, and refer to it before you say, uh, anything. To anyone. Ever.

You will comply, or there will be "consequences".
.

.
Political correctness is unAmerican. So is Black studies, women's studies, gay studies and any study that scapegoats white people for the purpose of blaming white people for every perceived ill. It's all part of Critical Theory a scheme thought up by Marxist communists to bring American Society down.
I will never be politically correct. I won't be needlessly insulting to blacks or Muslims, but I won't kiss their ass either. I call them as I see them.

How the hell does 'women's studies' scapegoat white people? Most of the 'people' taking women's studies courses are white. I took both courses in university. Neither one attacked or persecuted whites. They were informative, like reading biographies of black leaders and literature written by women, which was often left out of general literature courses or general history courses. And as you most likely never took such courses, you would not know that neither black studies nor women's studies put whites and/or white men in a bad light just because they are white or men. In fact, the courses simple covered material that is not typically covered in other courses. But you are too ignorant to know that as you simply dismiss such courses due to your personal biases.

Your tone and rhetoric clearly indicate bias and anger at anything you don't want to think about or hear. You make it pretty clear you don't like women and you don't like anyone who isn't white. You can scream all you want that isn't true, but your own post makes it quite clear. Claiming 'women's studies' is against whites? Seriously? And how does gay studies, if such a thing even exists, scapegoat white people when the majority of gay's, especially in the West, where such courses would be most prevalent, are white as well?

Women's studies, gay studies---scapegoating white people? Seriously, you do not have any logical or critical thinking skills, only anger and bias.

You need to post this: "It's all part of Critical Theory a scheme thought up by Marxist communists to bring American Society down." in the conspiracy forum: that's where it belongs. What a wee little mind you have, poor thing.

You sure dead European white guys weren't brought up by your women's studies professor?

Such courses are not designed for or directed at changing historical fact or being derogatory toward anyone: they are there to add knowledge. Period. You wouldn't know because you never took such courses.

Taken from a Feminist studies course outline:

17: Resistance, Alliances, and Coalitions
WIC: Cherríe Moraga, 449-52
Peggy McIntosh, "White Privilege, Male Privilege," RDR
Blood, Tuttle, and Lakey, "Understanding and Fighting Sexism: A Call to Men," RDR
Bernice Johnson Reagon, "Coalition Politics" RDR
Audre Lorde, "The Masters Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House," RDR
RECOMMENDED WEB PAGES: "How Men Fit In," Third Wave

This is the crap being pushed in a critic of maleness: by a group of emasculated males no less.


"About Male Culture...
"It's not only that men have used violence to maintain power and control over women, children and other men. Men have learned to think of power as our ability to dominate and control the world, the people around us, and our own unruly emotions...we learn that to be a man means having some sort of power and control. Most men are not violent, but most of us feel we have to perform and be on top at least somewhere in our lives." - Michael Kaufman, Cracking the Armour

Would a White Studies Or Men's Studies course be accepted on any liberal University you knew of?

If it is men teaching this course, that speaks volumes. Volumes about men who are not emasculated, as you say, but men who have open minds and are looking at society and history from a broader view point.

Why would any thinking person simply defend and totally agree with someone else because they are the same sex, same nationality, same religion, same political party, etc.? Why would anyone simply support someone because they are like themselves in one way or another? I travel and have lived around the world. I learned very early on, like 35 years ago, that just because someone is an American and we are both overseas, that doesn't mean we are fast friends and I want to spend my time with him or her. People are individuals.

Ideas, perspectives, knowledge, thoughts, impressions, understandings: these are individual, not group think. I'm not going to be defensive in every instance about all women. I'm not going to be defensive and in agreement in every instance with people who are liberals or progressives. I am not going to be defensive and in agreement in every instance with white people. And so on. Can you get the point? To do so would be an indication of a mind that is not thinking, that has a narrow perspective, that does not see the world from a broad and open minded perspective, a personal and individual perspective.

As far as women's, gay's, African American's, communism's, or any other idea or perspective: whatever their specific perspective, they do not influence a thinking person in any direction except as that thinking person wants to go. These are college courses, not brain washing experiences. A thinking individual uses critical thinking skills and determines to what extent the 'knowledge' being disseminated is valid or not, is biased or not. If you are intelligent enough to get into a university, where such courses are taught, you should be intelligent enough to think for yourself. And you should be, which you average guy are clearly not, be able to think in terms other than assumptions, stereotyping and sweeping generalizations, especially about courses you have never taken.

Generally, such courses are meant to make people think, not to brain wash them. To make them look at new perspectives and to disseminate information which is not covered in other courses. If you were a true thinking man, you'd be able to discern that instead of being reactionary and making thoughtless conclusions about a subject of which you actually have no experience.

The reason 'white studies' or 'men's studies' courses are not seen on university campuses is because they already dominate the entire educational and societal arena in the West. That's obvious, obvious to anyone with a mind that is focused on awareness of reality and not one with a skewed sense of reality that puts them into an unnecessary position of self defense, as if you are a persecuted minority, which you are not.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Well then. That's it. You haven't heard of it.....so it doesn't exist. Got it.

No, and we already went through this -- it's not that >I< never heard of it -- it's that few people have. It's a matter of degree. Again, look at the comments even on the MediaMatters site from the OP link, as well as numerous posters here.

I'm sure if we looked hard enough we could find evidence that cracking one's knuckles is offensive to Polish Zoroastrian lefthanded pet owners, but that doesn't make it a "thing".

Do you believe me when I tell you that I have known for a long time that a taste for Koolaid is a black stereotype? Straight up yes or no answer.

Sorry LL, didn't see this post before. Of course I have no reason to doubt you, but the question isn't whether you've heard of it or I haven't, but whether it's "widely known" in the general public per the definition. And from all indications, it isn't. If it were, there wouldn't be this many people expressing bewilderment at it.

I am willing to admit that not as many people know of this stereotype as I would have thought. Are you willing to admit that more people than you would have thought do know about it?

What I think is you are making a big deal out of nothing. Logically, if you think about it, it doesn't make the least bit of sense for this guy to say a racial slur to his colleage on national television. Logically, if you think about it reasonably, which you aren't doing because you want to make this a big issue of racism. Like most of the general public at large, this guy probably had no idea that Kool-Aid was linked to the black culture in any way. That's the logical conclusion.

I think it is really a bad thing to try to make something racial when it isn't. It demeans real racial issues. It's like women claiming rape or abuse when there isn't any: it demeans those who have righteous cause to claim rape or abuse. You are not doing blacks or those who oppose racism any favors with a thread like this.

I'm not making a big deal out of it. I'm simply explaining the matter. I've not said that Kilmeade said a racial slur. I've said many times that I do not know what was in his mind at the time.

And....I'm not trying to do black PEOPLE any favors. Simply setting that record straight with some information.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

This has got to be one of the all time tempest in a teapot stories.
Amazing the lengths some in the media will go to in order create a controversy.

 

[Correll]

.
Political correctness is unAmerican. So is Black studies, women's studies, gay studies and any study that scapegoats white people for the purpose of blaming white people for every perceived ill. It's all part of Critical Theory a scheme thought up by Marxist communists to bring American Society down.
I will never be politically correct. I won't be needlessly insulting to blacks or Muslims, but I won't kiss their ass either. I call them as I see them.

How the hell does 'women's studies' scapegoat white people? Most of the 'people' taking women's studies courses are white. I took both courses in university. Neither one attacked or persecuted whites. They were informative, like reading biographies of black leaders and literature written by women, which was often left out of general literature courses or general history courses. And as you most likely never took such courses, you would not know that neither black studies nor women's studies put whites and/or white men in a bad light just because they are white or men. In fact, the courses simple covered material that is not typically covered in other courses. But you are too ignorant to know that as you simply dismiss such courses due to your personal biases.

Your tone and rhetoric clearly indicate bias and anger at anything you don't want to think about or hear. You make it pretty clear you don't like women and you don't like anyone who isn't white. You can scream all you want that isn't true, but your own post makes it quite clear. Claiming 'women's studies' is against whites? Seriously? And how does gay studies, if such a thing even exists, scapegoat white people when the majority of gay's, especially in the West, where such courses would be most prevalent, are white as well?

Women's studies, gay studies---scapegoating white people? Seriously, you do not have any logical or critical thinking skills, only anger and bias.

You need to post this: "It's all part of Critical Theory a scheme thought up by Marxist communists to bring American Society down." in the conspiracy forum: that's where it belongs. What a wee little mind you have, poor thing.

You sure dead European white guys weren't brought up by your women's studies professor?

Such courses are not designed for or directed at changing historical fact or being derogatory toward anyone: they are there to add knowledge. Period. You wouldn't know because you never took such courses.

Taken from a Feminist studies course outline:

17: Resistance, Alliances, and Coalitions
WIC: Cherríe Moraga, 449-52
Peggy McIntosh, "White Privilege, Male Privilege," RDR
Blood, Tuttle, and Lakey, "Understanding and Fighting Sexism: A Call to Men," RDR
Bernice Johnson Reagon, "Coalition Politics" RDR
Audre Lorde, "The Masters Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House," RDR
RECOMMENDED WEB PAGES: "How Men Fit In," Third Wave

This is the crap being pushed in a critic of maleness: by a group of emasculated males no less.


"About Male Culture...
"It's not only that men have used violence to maintain power and control over women, children and other men. Men have learned to think of power as our ability to dominate and control the world, the people around us, and our own unruly emotions...we learn that to be a man means having some sort of power and control. Most men are not violent, but most of us feel we have to perform and be on top at least somewhere in our lives." - Michael Kaufman, Cracking the Armour

Would a White Studies Or Men's Studies course be accepted on any liberal University you knew of?

If it is men teaching this course, that speaks volumes. Volumes about men who are not emasculated, as you say, but men who have open minds and are looking at society and history from a broader view point.

Why would any thinking person simply defend and totally agree with someone else because they are the same sex, same nationality, same religion, same political party, etc.? Why would anyone simply support someone because they are like themselves in one way or another? I travel and have lived around the world. I learned very early on, like 35 years ago, that just because someone is an American and we are both overseas, that doesn't mean we are fast friends and I want to spend my time with him or her. People are individuals.

Ideas, perspectives, knowledge, thoughts, impressions, understandings: these are individual, not group think. I'm not going to be defensive in every instance about all women. I'm not going to be defensive and in agreement in every instance with people who are liberals or progressives. I am not going to be defensive and in agreement in every instance with white people. And so on. Can you get the point? To do so would be an indication of a mind that is not thinking, that has a narrow perspective, that does not see the world from a broad and open minded perspective, a personal and individual perspective.

As far as women's, gay's, African American's, communism's, or any other idea or perspective: whatever their specific perspective, they do not influence a thinking person in any direction except as that thinking person wants to go. These are college courses, not brain washing experiences. A thinking individual uses critical thinking skills and determines to what extent the 'knowledge' being disseminated is valid or not, is biased or not. If you are intelligent enough to get into a university, where such courses are taught, you should be intelligent enough to think for yourself. And you should be, which you average guy are clearly not, be able to think in terms other than assumptions, stereotyping and sweeping generalizations, especially about courses you have never taken.

Generally, such courses are meant to make people think, not to brain wash them. To make them look at new perspectives and to disseminate information which is not covered in other courses. If you were a true thinking man, you'd be able to discern that instead of being reactionary and making thoughtless conclusions about a subject of which you actually have no experience.

The reason 'white studies' or 'men's studies' courses are not seen on university campuses is because they already dominate the entire educational and societal arena in the West. That's obvious, obvious to anyone with a mind that is focused on awareness of reality and not one with a skewed sense of reality that puts them into an unnecessary position of self defense, as if you are a persecuted minority, which you are not.

Esmeralda, with all due respect, your are kidding yourself.

White men are defensive because we are constantly being attacked.

To claim we dominate ignores the last 40 years of cultural development.

 

[LoneLaugher]

How the hell does 'women's studies' scapegoat white people? Most of the 'people' taking women's studies courses are white. I took both courses in university. Neither one attacked or persecuted whites. They were informative, like reading biographies of black leaders and literature written by women, which was often left out of general literature courses or general history courses. And as you most likely never took such courses, you would not know that neither black studies nor women's studies put whites and/or white men in a bad light just because they are white or men. In fact, the courses simple covered material that is not typically covered in other courses. But you are too ignorant to know that as you simply dismiss such courses due to your personal biases.

Your tone and rhetoric clearly indicate bias and anger at anything you don't want to think about or hear. You make it pretty clear you don't like women and you don't like anyone who isn't white. You can scream all you want that isn't true, but your own post makes it quite clear. Claiming 'women's studies' is against whites? Seriously? And how does gay studies, if such a thing even exists, scapegoat white people when the majority of gay's, especially in the West, where such courses would be most prevalent, are white as well?

Women's studies, gay studies---scapegoating white people? Seriously, you do not have any logical or critical thinking skills, only anger and bias.

You need to post this: "It's all part of Critical Theory a scheme thought up by Marxist communists to bring American Society down." in the conspiracy forum: that's where it belongs. What a wee little mind you have, poor thing.

You sure dead European white guys weren't brought up by your women's studies professor?

Such courses are not designed for or directed at changing historical fact or being derogatory toward anyone: they are there to add knowledge. Period. You wouldn't know because you never took such courses.

Taken from a Feminist studies course outline:

17: Resistance, Alliances, and Coalitions
WIC: Cherríe Moraga, 449-52
Peggy McIntosh, "White Privilege, Male Privilege," RDR
Blood, Tuttle, and Lakey, "Understanding and Fighting Sexism: A Call to Men," RDR
Bernice Johnson Reagon, "Coalition Politics" RDR
Audre Lorde, "The Masters Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House," RDR
RECOMMENDED WEB PAGES: "How Men Fit In," Third Wave

This is the crap being pushed in a critic of maleness: by a group of emasculated males no less.


"About Male Culture...
"It's not only that men have used violence to maintain power and control over women, children and other men. Men have learned to think of power as our ability to dominate and control the world, the people around us, and our own unruly emotions...we learn that to be a man means having some sort of power and control. Most men are not violent, but most of us feel we have to perform and be on top at least somewhere in our lives." - Michael Kaufman, Cracking the Armour

Would a White Studies Or Men's Studies course be accepted on any liberal University you knew of?

If it is men teaching this course, that speaks volumes. Volumes about men who are not emasculated, as you say, but men who have open minds and are looking at society and history from a broader view point.

Why would any thinking person simply defend and totally agree with someone else because they are the same sex, same nationality, same religion, same political party, etc.? Why would anyone simply support someone because they are like themselves in one way or another? I travel and have lived around the world. I learned very early on, like 35 years ago, that just because someone is an American and we are both overseas, that doesn't mean we are fast friends and I want to spend my time with him or her. People are individuals.

Ideas, perspectives, knowledge, thoughts, impressions, understandings: these are individual, not group think. I'm not going to be defensive in every instance about all women. I'm not going to be defensive and in agreement in every instance with people who are liberals or progressives. I am not going to be defensive and in agreement in every instance with white people. And so on. Can you get the point? To do so would be an indication of a mind that is not thinking, that has a narrow perspective, that does not see the world from a broad and open minded perspective, a personal and individual perspective.

As far as women's, gay's, African American's, communism's, or any other idea or perspective: whatever their specific perspective, they do not influence a thinking person in any direction except as that thinking person wants to go. These are college courses, not brain washing experiences. A thinking individual uses critical thinking skills and determines to what extent the 'knowledge' being disseminated is valid or not, is biased or not. If you are intelligent enough to get into a university, where such courses are taught, you should be intelligent enough to think for yourself. And you should be, which you average guy are clearly not, be able to think in terms other than assumptions, stereotyping and sweeping generalizations, especially about courses you have never taken.

Generally, such courses are meant to make people think, not to brain wash them. To make them look at new perspectives and to disseminate information which is not covered in other courses. If you were a true thinking man, you'd be able to discern that instead of being reactionary and making thoughtless conclusions about a subject of which you actually have no experience.

The reason 'white studies' or 'men's studies' courses are not seen on university campuses is because they already dominate the entire educational and societal arena in the West. That's obvious, obvious to anyone with a mind that is focused on awareness of reality and not one with a skewed sense of reality that puts them into an unnecessary position of self defense, as if you are a persecuted minority, which you are not.

Esmeralda, with all due respect, your are kidding yourself.

White men are defensive because we are constantly being attacked.

To claim we dominate ignores the last 40 years of cultural development.

Funny shit. Us poor, poor white men. It's a wonder that we have survived this long.

 

[Correll]

Z

Did you read the comment that I made which prompted her to tell me that little story? If you had...you'd know that her story doesn't contradict anything that I have said. That is especially true when you consider that she made it up entirely.

I wonder if you are willing to admit that you are an asshole as well? Is there an honest bone in that body of yours?

Her story is far more credible than your doubt.

I am not an asshole. I am a very nice person. I am only rude to people that richly deserve it, like you.

Fail.

NOpe. Her story is completely credible. No reasonable person would doubt it and only an asshole would accuse her of being a liar.

I am a nice person. ON the rare occasions when libs can behave like civilized people, you can see threads where I am completely polite and civil to them in return.

You? You can only be not an asshole for a little while before your natural character shows itself.

THe only Fail here is yours.

Of course. Ask anyone here. You are a gem of a guy. Real nice. Nobody would ever think you were an asshole.

Oh hell no. He's an asshole.

Bullshit. If I was ever rude to you, you deserved it.

 

[Esmeralda]

How the hell does 'women's studies' scapegoat white people? Most of the 'people' taking women's studies courses are white. I took both courses in university. Neither one attacked or persecuted whites. They were informative, like reading biographies of black leaders and literature written by women, which was often left out of general literature courses or general history courses. And as you most likely never took such courses, you would not know that neither black studies nor women's studies put whites and/or white men in a bad light just because they are white or men. In fact, the courses simple covered material that is not typically covered in other courses. But you are too ignorant to know that as you simply dismiss such courses due to your personal biases.

Your tone and rhetoric clearly indicate bias and anger at anything you don't want to think about or hear. You make it pretty clear you don't like women and you don't like anyone who isn't white. You can scream all you want that isn't true, but your own post makes it quite clear. Claiming 'women's studies' is against whites? Seriously? And how does gay studies, if such a thing even exists, scapegoat white people when the majority of gay's, especially in the West, where such courses would be most prevalent, are white as well?

Women's studies, gay studies---scapegoating white people? Seriously, you do not have any logical or critical thinking skills, only anger and bias.

You need to post this: "It's all part of Critical Theory a scheme thought up by Marxist communists to bring American Society down." in the conspiracy forum: that's where it belongs. What a wee little mind you have, poor thing.

You sure dead European white guys weren't brought up by your women's studies professor?

Such courses are not designed for or directed at changing historical fact or being derogatory toward anyone: they are there to add knowledge. Period. You wouldn't know because you never took such courses.

Taken from a Feminist studies course outline:

17: Resistance, Alliances, and Coalitions
WIC: Cherríe Moraga, 449-52
Peggy McIntosh, "White Privilege, Male Privilege," RDR
Blood, Tuttle, and Lakey, "Understanding and Fighting Sexism: A Call to Men," RDR
Bernice Johnson Reagon, "Coalition Politics" RDR
Audre Lorde, "The Masters Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House," RDR
RECOMMENDED WEB PAGES: "How Men Fit In," Third Wave

This is the crap being pushed in a critic of maleness: by a group of emasculated males no less.


"About Male Culture...
"It's not only that men have used violence to maintain power and control over women, children and other men. Men have learned to think of power as our ability to dominate and control the world, the people around us, and our own unruly emotions...we learn that to be a man means having some sort of power and control. Most men are not violent, but most of us feel we have to perform and be on top at least somewhere in our lives." - Michael Kaufman, Cracking the Armour

Would a White Studies Or Men's Studies course be accepted on any liberal University you knew of?

If it is men teaching this course, that speaks volumes. Volumes about men who are not emasculated, as you say, but men who have open minds and are looking at society and history from a broader view point.

Why would any thinking person simply defend and totally agree with someone else because they are the same sex, same nationality, same religion, same political party, etc.? Why would anyone simply support someone because they are like themselves in one way or another? I travel and have lived around the world. I learned very early on, like 35 years ago, that just because someone is an American and we are both overseas, that doesn't mean we are fast friends and I want to spend my time with him or her. People are individuals.

Ideas, perspectives, knowledge, thoughts, impressions, understandings: these are individual, not group think. I'm not going to be defensive in every instance about all women. I'm not going to be defensive and in agreement in every instance with people who are liberals or progressives. I am not going to be defensive and in agreement in every instance with white people. And so on. Can you get the point? To do so would be an indication of a mind that is not thinking, that has a narrow perspective, that does not see the world from a broad and open minded perspective, a personal and individual perspective.

As far as women's, gay's, African American's, communism's, or any other idea or perspective: whatever their specific perspective, they do not influence a thinking person in any direction except as that thinking person wants to go. These are college courses, not brain washing experiences. A thinking individual uses critical thinking skills and determines to what extent the 'knowledge' being disseminated is valid or not, is biased or not. If you are intelligent enough to get into a university, where such courses are taught, you should be intelligent enough to think for yourself. And you should be, which you average guy are clearly not, be able to think in terms other than assumptions, stereotyping and sweeping generalizations, especially about courses you have never taken.

Generally, such courses are meant to make people think, not to brain wash them. To make them look at new perspectives and to disseminate information which is not covered in other courses. If you were a true thinking man, you'd be able to discern that instead of being reactionary and making thoughtless conclusions about a subject of which you actually have no experience.

The reason 'white studies' or 'men's studies' courses are not seen on university campuses is because they already dominate the entire educational and societal arena in the West. That's obvious, obvious to anyone with a mind that is focused on awareness of reality and not one with a skewed sense of reality that puts them into an unnecessary position of self defense, as if you are a persecuted minority, which you are not.

Esmeralda, with all due respect, your are kidding yourself.

White men are defensive because we are constantly being attacked.

To claim we dominate ignores the last 40 years of cultural development.

If you think white men are oppressed, then you haven't got a clue what real oppression is.

 

[Correll]

You sure dead European white guys weren't brought up by your women's studies professor?

Such courses are not designed for or directed at changing historical fact or being derogatory toward anyone: they are there to add knowledge. Period. You wouldn't know because you never took such courses.

Taken from a Feminist studies course outline:

17: Resistance, Alliances, and Coalitions
WIC: Cherríe Moraga, 449-52
Peggy McIntosh, "White Privilege, Male Privilege," RDR
Blood, Tuttle, and Lakey, "Understanding and Fighting Sexism: A Call to Men," RDR
Bernice Johnson Reagon, "Coalition Politics" RDR
Audre Lorde, "The Masters Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House," RDR
RECOMMENDED WEB PAGES: "How Men Fit In," Third Wave

This is the crap being pushed in a critic of maleness: by a group of emasculated males no less.


"About Male Culture...
"It's not only that men have used violence to maintain power and control over women, children and other men. Men have learned to think of power as our ability to dominate and control the world, the people around us, and our own unruly emotions...we learn that to be a man means having some sort of power and control. Most men are not violent, but most of us feel we have to perform and be on top at least somewhere in our lives." - Michael Kaufman, Cracking the Armour

Would a White Studies Or Men's Studies course be accepted on any liberal University you knew of?

If it is men teaching this course, that speaks volumes. Volumes about men who are not emasculated, as you say, but men who have open minds and are looking at society and history from a broader view point.

Why would any thinking person simply defend and totally agree with someone else because they are the same sex, same nationality, same religion, same political party, etc.? Why would anyone simply support someone because they are like themselves in one way or another? I travel and have lived around the world. I learned very early on, like 35 years ago, that just because someone is an American and we are both overseas, that doesn't mean we are fast friends and I want to spend my time with him or her. People are individuals.

Ideas, perspectives, knowledge, thoughts, impressions, understandings: these are individual, not group think. I'm not going to be defensive in every instance about all women. I'm not going to be defensive and in agreement in every instance with people who are liberals or progressives. I am not going to be defensive and in agreement in every instance with white people. And so on. Can you get the point? To do so would be an indication of a mind that is not thinking, that has a narrow perspective, that does not see the world from a broad and open minded perspective, a personal and individual perspective.

As far as women's, gay's, African American's, communism's, or any other idea or perspective: whatever their specific perspective, they do not influence a thinking person in any direction except as that thinking person wants to go. These are college courses, not brain washing experiences. A thinking individual uses critical thinking skills and determines to what extent the 'knowledge' being disseminated is valid or not, is biased or not. If you are intelligent enough to get into a university, where such courses are taught, you should be intelligent enough to think for yourself. And you should be, which you average guy are clearly not, be able to think in terms other than assumptions, stereotyping and sweeping generalizations, especially about courses you have never taken.

Generally, such courses are meant to make people think, not to brain wash them. To make them look at new perspectives and to disseminate information which is not covered in other courses. If you were a true thinking man, you'd be able to discern that instead of being reactionary and making thoughtless conclusions about a subject of which you actually have no experience.

The reason 'white studies' or 'men's studies' courses are not seen on university campuses is because they already dominate the entire educational and societal arena in the West. That's obvious, obvious to anyone with a mind that is focused on awareness of reality and not one with a skewed sense of reality that puts them into an unnecessary position of self defense, as if you are a persecuted minority, which you are not.

Esmeralda, with all due respect, your are kidding yourself.

White men are defensive because we are constantly being attacked.

To claim we dominate ignores the last 40 years of cultural development.

Funny shit. Us poor, poor white men. It's a wonder that we have survived this long.

To quote avegguy

"Taken from a Feminist studies course outline:

17: Resistance, Alliances, and Coalitions
WIC: Cherríe Moraga, 449-52
Peggy McIntosh, "White Privilege, Male Privilege," RDR
Blood, Tuttle, and Lakey, "Understanding and Fighting Sexism: A Call to Men," RDR
Bernice Johnson Reagon, "Coalition Politics" RDR
Audre Lorde, "The Masters Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House," RDR
RECOMMENDED WEB PAGES: "How Men Fit In," Third Wave

This is the crap being pushed in a critic of maleness: by a group of emasculated males no less.


"About Male Culture...
"It's not only that men have used violence to maintain power and control over women, children and other men. Men have learned to think of power as our ability to dominate and control the world, the people around us, and our own unruly emotions...we learn that to be a man means having some sort of power and control. Most men are not violent, but most of us feel we have to perform and be on top at least somewhere in our lives." - Michael Kaufman, Cracking the Armour"