 |
Comments |
|
 | Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 14:30:31 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: z
E-mail: shekfu(at)hotmail.com
"Is there a need for a Black Google?"
Whose need? |
|
| Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 15:02:15 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Alec
The idea of a search engine for Black's assumes that all Blacks think alike, have the same values, etc. That is an incredibly racist idea that Hitler would have supported. |
|
| Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 15:57:57 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Paul Hsieh
E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
Alec: It does not necessarily imply that all blacks think alike, etc. It could also mean that there is a distinct subgroup of people who have different search preferences that would actually be useful to them.
For instance, the existence of the commercially successful network BET (Black Entertainment Television) does not mean that every black person is interested in that particular content. That assumption would be incorrect and racist.
But it does indicate the *some* group of people have a distinctive set of viewing interests such that content producers (and advertisers) find it worth their while to target their products towards that particular audience. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that those viewers are black. There may be, for instance, young Asian kids in LA that are drawn to that particular culture for whatever reason, such that advertisers believe they are a fruitful marketing target. |
|
| Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 16:09:06 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: z
E-mail: shekfu(at)hotmail.com
Hi Alec, I respectfully disagree. First, I don't think that the idea of a black search engine assumes that all blacks think alike. The fact is that many black people share a culture which is separate and apart from white people. They have interests and values which differ from the groups they are apart from. They are not satisfied with the choices offered in many areas, e.g. clothing, television shows, entertainment, food. Thus they seek stores, channels, and now, search engines which provide them with what they are interested in.
I see the problem you see in this though. Its troubling that large groups of people have a set of interests and the common denominator of these interests is associated with their skin color. I see that as a legacy of their being kept separate. Lets face it, most of us would not behave like this but the fact is that black people were, for the most part, purposely kept separate from white people for generations. This phenomenon has only recently begun to change. There is a physical and intellectual divide between these two races which is going to take a lot of time to bridge.
Therefore, I don't think that black fraternities, television channels, clothing stores, and search engines are equivalent to the KKK. It is an often repeated argument I hear which says that white people wouldn't have a "white" fraternity. I don't think this argument is valid. But to agree with me, you have to see it from the perspective of people who were kept separate and consequently developed separately, with separate interests and values. There may be a need for a tv show about a black family (cosby), whereas it'd be ridiculous to say there is a need for a show about a white family because throughout the history of television, most shows were about a white family. Most fraternities were all white.
All of this I'm saying takes place within the context of what I view as optional values. I don't think it would be appropriate, say, for there to be a "black doctors'" search engine, as opposed to a "white doctor" website. Medicine is medicine and there is no rational basis for there to be racial divisions in science, logic, politics, ethics, epistemology, etc. Forgive me for whining but I really hate to hear white people complain that it's racist when black people group together around shared optional values. There are very good reasons for them to do so. Hopefully these groups will become less associated with skin color and more associated with the particular optional value in question in the future. |
|
| Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 16:32:46 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: B. Dietz
E-mail: dietzint34(at)yahoo.com
Multiculturalism, egalitarianism and the welfare state have destroyed (or are destroying) race relations in America. Under laissez-faire, racism would have almost disappeared by now. But Jim Crow and anti-black racism were replaced by multiculturalism and *anti-white* racism. IMO, the greatest displays of overt racism are made by blacks and hispanics and is targeted at whites. If you look at the criminal statistics, you see that black on white violence is astronomical; orders of magnitude higher than white on white or white on black violence. I think it is accurate to say that there is a high degree of black savagery directed at whites in America. Not to mention that there is essentially no big city in America that does not have a black inner city where it is positively unsafe for a white person to be after nightfall. The reverse is not true. Racial socialism has destroyed so many American Cities. Take a look at Detroit which now because of rational "white flight" is 70% black and resembles a war zone.
I don't state this in the same vein as a racialist would who believes that blacks are inferior because of possessing lower IQs on average. Racialist arguments are thinly veiled racism. I lay the blame entirely with altruism and the welfare state and thus with philosophy. But I do want to disagree with "Z" and his charge of white racism as a dominant factor in present day America. I don't believe it is and actually think the black population is indeed more racist on average as they are most definitely more *collectivist* on average.
As for the search engine, it sounds to me like typical multiculturalism based on the standard black grievance claims. |
|
| Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 16:49:38 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: z
E-mail: shekfu(at)hotmail.com
Deitz, you made some good points. However, I'd like to say that I don't believe you are interpreting me correctly. I said
"I see that as a *legacy* of their being kept separate. Lets face it, most of us would not behave like this but the fact is that black people were, for the most part, purposely kept separate from white people *for generations*. This phenomenon has only recently begun to change."
I do believe its generally true that black people are more collectivist. I think this reflects the intellectual divide about which I wrote. (By intellectual divide I mean ideas circulating among individuals in a group, not intelligence.) |
|
| Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 17:07:26 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Renee Katz
E-mail: reneekatz(at)gmail.com
URL: http://adventuresinexistence.blogspot.com
Ugh. Why is our society so fixated on race? |
|
| Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 17:14:52 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: z
E-mail: shekfu(at)hotmail.com
I think its an interesting topic. |
|
| Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 22:19:47 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
"you see that black on white violence is astronomical; orders of magnitude higher than white on white or white on black violence."
IIRC all of those pale versus the one configuration you left out, which is black-on-black violence. I do not have a source handy, though.
I do not agree entirely with "Z"; this sort of thing is not only a "legacy" of being kept separate, as it is part of a *new* effort to separate blacks, to prevent them from integrating into America. The motive here is to maintain the collectivist persecution mythology which serves to prevent blacks from escaping the ideological "plantation" which the Left has created for them.
It is the new segregation by cultural means, built upon racism -- the specific contrivance of a culture "for blacks". If you are black, you are supposed to like rap, for example. Another such example of contrived "culture" is Kwanzaa, which instills race consciousness at the age where black children first become aware of Christmas.
For those blacks who dare to assert themselves as individuals and wander off the plantation, there is a very special sort of ostracism awaiting them: you get to be smeared as an "Oreo" (black on the outside, white on the inside) and as a "race traitor" by the likes of Harry Belafonte -- as Nazi-like a phrase as Ive ever heard.
This, mercifully, is not universal, and shall not be so long as any freedom is left. But I am reminded of it every time I meet black artists here in Hollywood, and their work is far too often confined to the narrow specialties and "art" forms defined as "black". |
|
| Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 2:30:16 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
To what is one appealing by calling it "Black (whatever)" if not race? And on what basis is it claimed the 'whatever' being offered is distinctively 'black', etc.? |
|
| Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 19:47:49 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: KPaige
E-mail: tr34rip(at)dlco.net
Jim: Excellent points. All of them. Thanks.
Brian: You are right. I should have said "savagery on the part of a significant number of blacks directed at whites" not "black savagery." That is collectivist. |
|
| Friday, January 1, 2010 at 17:21:01 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: masmax
E-mail: masmax(at)hotmail.co.uk
URL: http://www.pixeleco.com
Darkoogle.com |
|
| Friday, January 1, 2010 at 17:21:40 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: masmax
E-mail: masmax(at)hotmail.co.uk
URL: http://www.pixeleco.com
I suggest http://www.pixeleco.com
because it’s the best Black Google search engine out there and saves energy too. |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Paul Hsieh
Comments
