Saw this on facebook. I laughed.
Saw this on facebook. I laughed.
“You know that shirt that says ‘Detroit hustles harder’? The city of Detroit has a dilapidated, broken down image, and, culturally, ‘hustling’ is affiliated with the gangster lifestyle. But living in proximity to the city, I’ve gained a more profound understanding of the word and what it means that Detroit hustles harder: hustling is about the willingness to sustain the struggle of life, the determination to continue.”
Make sure you ALWAYS greet african parents
yooooooooo caribbean parents too, especially if you in they house
First of, why would I be friends with someone who won’t greet my parents , like?
His faces LMFAO
"saying Black Power is reverse ra-"
"if you don’t have anything to hide, then the pol-"
"why don’t you talk about black on black cr-"
"the irish were discriminated against t-"
Black Panthers are as bad as the KK-“
"it’s racist that we can’t have a white histor-"
"There’s a war against whi-"
Are you a fan of Cornel West?
Click here to see how I feel about Cornel West.
In all seriousness, this can’t be answered with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’. It’s complicated.
First off, which Cornel West are you talking about? He has changed over the years. The Cornel West appearing on talk shows in the early 90s isn’t the same Cornel West of today.
Nevertheless, the one thing about him that is interesting is his aligning with politicians who hold views that he should be diametrically opposed to. West is a non-Marxist socialist, but he aligns himself politically with democratic capitalists, which is odd. Sure, he takes President Obama to task and says he’s controlled by wall street oligarchs and corporate plutocrats, but did he not know this beforehand when he was stumping for him, or did he get a revelation later on? He knows how the game is played and has always stumped for politicians like Obama with ties to the banking industry, like Bill Bradley. I expect laypeople like us to not get it, but not him. Which makes me question the true cause of the rift he had with Obama. It can’t be politics because Obama has always been a centrist and an ally to wall street and big banks. Look at who he appointed in his cabinet from day 1. They have mostly been bankers or allies to bankers. Why was Obama cool then if he has such a problem with wall street oligarchs and corporate plutocrats?
Prior to Obama, West actually took time off from teaching to stump for Bill Bradley’s presidential campaign. That is an odd candidate for someone like West to campaign for. Although a liberal democrat, Bradley was an investment banker and is part of the system that West is always railing about. Bradley wasn’t going to come down hard on the banking industry, no matter what he said on the campaign trail. In fact, the reason why West left Harvard and went to Princeton was because the President of Harvard, Larry Summers (another economist banker that Obama nearly appointed to replace Ben Bernanke as chair of the federal reserve) criticized West for taking time off to campaign for Bill Bradley running for president and going on paid speaking tours, selling books, stumping for various politicians, basically doing everything to fatten his pockets except doing his actual job, being a lecturer.
I suppose my position on West is indifference. I don’t despise him, but I don’t revere him either.
That said, regardless of what his feelings or motives are, he does voice his opinions on topics like President Obama neglecting issues pertaining to Black Americans and Palestine. It would be a lot easier for him to shut up about those issues, so I’ll respect that.
I think the haunting in Connecticut 2 was about slaves who were treated badly and came back for their former owner if I'm not mistaken
Thanks. I haven’t seen it.
White People: The Middle East is so barbaric. They’ll cut off a person’s hand just for stealing!
White People when an unarmed black kid is murdered by police in America: Yeah, but he shoplifted some cigarillos, so…
Thanks for the excellent commentary on Dawkins and Hitch. I'm not familiar with Sam Harris and won't be seeking him out. What atheist writers and thinkers would you recommend.
There are quite a few. The thing is that many of the atheist writers and thinkers I have studied are far more than just that, so their work is broad and diverse. On the surface, they aren’t merely atheist champions. Perfect examples of this are activist Hubert Harrison and Nigeria’s Tai Solarin and Wole Soyinka. They aren’t defined by their atheism, unlike “new atheism” where it seems their lack of faith is the cause for their celebration and where it’s like they’re almost proselytizing atheism, in a sense like it’s a religion.
That said, there are many notable and outspoken atheists. I’ll narrow it down to Black atheists because they are speaking from a perspective that is relevant to me.
Sikivu Hutchinson, Jamila Bey and Leo Igwe are 3 atheists I admire. Although as of late, Igwe’s writing has started taking on a Dawkins-esque tone.
hmm, yoga is kind of girly #nohomo
let’s rename it so it sounds manlier and make it just for the bros
for the bros only
WHY DO MEN NEED TO REBRAND EVERYTHING TOUCHED BY WOMEN?
SIT DOWN AND EAT YOUR YOGURT AND SALAD AND DO YOUR YOGA
FOLLOW UP YOUR INTENSE BROGA SESSION WITH SOME BROGURT AND A BRAH-LAD
Straight guys make me sick. But I’m a straight(ish) woman. SOMEBODY HELP ME.
Remember when Dr. Pepper tried to market diet Dr. Pepper to men? See the commercial here.
“If there is one thing that an atheist movement should stand against (or at least be reflexively suspicious of), it is the erection of cults of personality around individual voices. Most movement atheists will be able to, without breaking stride, list a number of specific examples of religious movements that have gone terribly awry when a single person is placed at their zenith. Atheistic communities are no exception, or at least should not be. If Richard Dawkins is ‘a liability’, it is because we atheists have failed to resist the urge toward celebrity worship. In a perfect world, Dr. Dawkins‘ opinions on evolution would be evaluated and lauded when accurate, and his opinions on other matters would be seen as irrelevant when they are false. The fact that he regularly repeats fairly common bromides about rape culture and xenophobia would be seen, in this better world, as reflective of an incurious mind that speaks more than it thinks. To the extent that this is not the case (many atheists I know have no interest in Dr. Dawkins‘ opinions), it should be seen as a failing of the community to live up to its principles. When people continue to write articles as though it was still 2007 and The God Delusion was still one of the only popular sources for atheist advocacy, it cements the perception that Richard Dawkins is reflective of the atheist movement rather than being simply one voice among many.”
Quote is from Is Richard Dawkins An Asset Or A Liability To Atheism? No. Must…read. Love how he questions the question itself (problem with liability/asset binary), questions the idea that there is “one” atheist movement (nope) and illustrates how similar personality cult in secular space is to it some theist ones. Oh and I’m one of the atheists that has "no interest in Dr. Dawkins‘ opinions." Must read full essay!
Dawkins is a cult like figure, but he is one primarily for white atheists, white male atheists in particular. These people are the ‘dudebro’ faction of atheism. They are humorously known as ‘Dawkbros’. The Black atheists I know don’t particularly care about Dawkins. He’s basically a non-entity. Like Cromwell said, this isn’t 2007 and the God Delusion was a long time ago.
What I have seen from white atheists is that they typically only know 3 voices, and those voices are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens. Each voice serves a purpose and in their opinion, makes their worldview rounded. Harris is the calm voice. He’s not prone to outbursts, which makes his blatant islamophobia seem “rational” to white people. He tweets nonsense like Dawkins, but it flies under the radar because while popular, he isn’t Dawkins popular. And let’s face it, less people will read an article critiquing Sam Harris than Richard Dawkins. Few editors will greenlight an article taking Harris to task simply because it won’t garner as many eyeballs. Critiques on Dawkins are always welcome because it will bring traffic.
Hitchens is dead, but he was largely revered because he was confrontational. Before Dawkins got on twitter, the articles being written were taking Hitchens to task, so Dawkins just slipped into that role with the ridiculous things he says. Hitchens was taken to task not just on atheism and his outlandish persona, but for his zealous support of the Bush/Cheney administration and the war in Iraq. He morphed into a bizarre neocon who loved the military industrial complex and the “war on terror” to get the ‘evil muslims’. “Shariah is coming” he would squeal. He was the guy who always went off the cuff. He was surly, in your face and always looking to debate. He also sometimes added entertainment value (i.e. his debates with Dinesh D’Souza and Al Sharpton). “What will Hitch say next?”, his audience and detractors alike would ask.
Dawkins is the academic. At least that was who he was until he got on twitter. Now he’s just a blithering fool. He seems to think that being an academic expunges foolishness from someone and that his opinions are strictly a matter of rationality.
There is a 4th atheist in the mix, and he is also an academic, and that is Daniel Dennett. He rounds out the “top 4” white male atheists, but he just isn’t as known as Dawkins, Hitchens or even Harris. Which is why I mentioned 3. Dennett is on the periphery, but he’s a joke too.
A few years ago, Dawkins and Dennett championed a movement known as “The Brights movement”. The term ‘Bright’ was appropriated and applied to atheists, secularists and non-believers in general, as if being an atheist means you are intelligent by default and that being a believer means you are unintelligent. Dawkins compared the Brights movement to gay people using the term ‘gay’. Everyone I encountered in the Brights movement was a white Dawkbro loser. Everyone of them. 100% of them. There wasn’t one of them that had a redeeming character. These clowns really thought that they were going through a civil rights struggle like Black Americans and that the dawn of enlightenment was upon us and that Dawkins and Dennett were ushering it in. It was very cultish and new-agey. Even Christoper Hitchens thought the idea was silly. These jokers were walking around calling themselves “Brights”. It was awful and scary at the same time. They really were some sort of fangled, new age atheist cult. No sir, I was not going to drink that kool-aid.
The problem white atheists (white people in general) have is that like other aspects of their lives, they are only hearing reassuring voices. They only listen to people like them. They go through life in a tunnel. They have no idea what other people are doing or saying. They don’t know other atheist voices outside of the white male prototype. Intersection is not a reality in their world. If you ask them who Sikivu Hutchinson is, most would have no idea. White atheists are very insular and in an ironic way, people like Dawkins end up being their messiahs. It’s like the church of new atheism. It’s very ‘dear leader-esque’ in the Kim Jong-il, North Korean sense.
Sadly, I’ve seen prominent African atheists like Leo Igwe aligning themselves with Dawkins. That is a shame. Igwe actually does important work, like speaking out and fighting against the child witch hysteria across West African nations. He puts himself at risk and he’s actually saving lives, unlike Dawkins who pretty much just gives talks, has debates and tweets nonsense. Why anyone is aligning with Dawkins is beyond me. I suppose some people think you can’t earn your atheist stripes without getting a “blessing” from the atheist Pope, which many have christened Dawkins more or less by their idolatry of him.
The less I read about Dawkins the better quite frankly. My eyes start to glaze when I encounter atheists that worship this man. The veneration white atheists have for this clueless old git speaks volumes. Dawkins is smart as an evolutionary biologist, but that’s where the buck stops. He doesn’t know how to interact with people and he inserts his foot in his mouth time and time again. I knew he wasn’t shit when he referred to indigenous African beliefs as “the great juju up the mountain”.
This is how Dawkins acts. He’ll say something about a group of people that is either bigoted, insensitive, short-sighted or flat out wrong. He will then get called out. Instead of owning up to his mistake, he masks this canard as “rationality”. I’m tired of the word ‘rational’ being abused like this. In fact, the word ‘rational’ is an anathema to me these days and it is in large part due to people like Dawkins and white atheists. Rationality is just a new way for them to carry out their fuckshit. What is rational about cultural insensitivity and bigotry? Not a damn thing.
Dawkins does this rinse and repeat, but the thing is that he isn’t losing followers. On the contrary he’s gaining them, white men in particular. They aren’t reading articles taking Dawkins to task, or they aren’t taking them seriously. If you read these articles, you’ll always seen the Dawkins army in the comment section defending him. They do it because they mask their white centrality as rationality. See, it’s not bigotry or Eurocentrism that makes Dawkins only acknowledge that white people have done great things or that the finest music in the world are from dead white classical composers or that the best literature in the world is from dead white writers. That’s just “rational” thought processes. He just rationalized greatness and civilization as white. You see, white supremacy is rational. It’s totally normal in their estimation for the only worthwhile things in life to be white. This is their dear leader and they will protect him at all costs. It’s not just about atheism, they are defending his ideas and Eurocentric worldview because they too believe it. If it was purely about atheism, then why aren’t they protecting Black women atheists like Sikivu Hutchinson in comment sections when people vehemently disagree with her? Right.
Tyson the Swan
Tyson will attack you if you come within a two-mile stretch of the Grand Union Canal in Bugbrooke, Northamptonshire. Joe Davies learned this the hard way and capsized.
*headstrong by trapt plays*
The great thing about this is a that a photographer watched and took pictures of the guy getting assaulted by a swan. The swan is just protecting his territory and his family. He’s not doing anything wrong.
"Freelance isn’t free!" - amen sister!
Parineeti Chopra responds to a male reporter who claims to know nothing about periods (menstrual cycle). [X]