HomeCounter-Racism Radio NetworkCounter-Racism Television NetworkArticlesProjectsCounter-Racism Work/Study ProjectShopping MallContact
Secure DonationsSecure Donations  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  RegisterRegister  ProfileProfile  Log inLog in

\"racist suspect status\"
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Counter-Racism Work/Study Project Forum Index -> Counter-Racism Science Project
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
HelixHair



Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Posts: 383
Location: Everywhere that is nowhere

PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:33 pm    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Josh wrote:
Helix, do you have a suggestion or question for my experiment that will make it better.


Josh


I don't think there is a way to make your experimiment work because I don't think your hypothesis is testable.

Is it your hypothesis that a white person who says that a non-white person is white is attempting to confuse the non-white person? How do you first "prove" that the white person is not him/herself confused?
_________________
Death of the lower body is certain. Now what?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Edward Williams
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Apr 2003
Posts: 3079
Location: I am from everywhere I've ever been and everywhere I've never been

PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 1:06 am    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

HelixHair wrote:
Josh wrote:
Helix, do you have a suggestion or question for my experiment that will make it better.


Josh


I don't think there is a way to make your experimiment work because I don't think your hypothesis is testable.

Is it your hypothesis that a white person who says that a non-white person is white is attempting to confuse the non-white person? How do you first "prove" that the white person is not him/herself confused?

HelixHair,

What are the step-by-step instructions that you suggest a non-white person undertake to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that any white person is not confused about whether or not they are a white person?
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Josh



Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 796
Location: Closer

PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:12 am    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

HelixHair wrote:
Josh wrote:
Helix, do you have a suggestion or question for my experiment that will make it better.


Josh


I don't think there is a way to make your experimiment work because I don't think your hypothesis is testable.

Is it your hypothesis that a white person who says that a non-white person is white is attempting to confuse the non-white person? How do you first "prove" that the white person is not him/herself confused?




The suspect is not confused about whether he is a White person because:

1. He functions as a White person when interacting with other White people.

2. Admits he knows what a White person is.

3. Will not admit the non white female he is having sexual intercourse with is non white even though she says she is non white.



Josh
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Josh



Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 796
Location: Closer

PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attention:

Please note the modifications/editing of the experiment.




Josh
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
HelixHair



Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Posts: 383
Location: Everywhere that is nowhere

PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 2:57 am    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Edward Williams wrote:
HelixHair wrote:
Josh wrote:
Helix, do you have a suggestion or question for my experiment that will make it better.


Josh


I don't think there is a way to make your experimiment work because I don't think your hypothesis is testable.

Is it your hypothesis that a white person who says that a non-white person is white is attempting to confuse the non-white person? How do you first "prove" that the white person is not him/herself confused?

HelixHair,

What are the step-by-step instructions that you suggest a non-white person undertake to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that any white person is not confused about whether or not they are a white person?


I do not know. And, I have said to Josh that I do not think that such a method can be constructed. I.e., his hypothesis is not testable.
_________________
Death of the lower body is certain. Now what?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
HelixHair



Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Posts: 383
Location: Everywhere that is nowhere

PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 3:10 am    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Josh wrote:
Note: while putting the previous experiment in the correct format, I came up with another version.





White people who answer "NO" to the critical question


Observed Phenomenon:


You are a non white person and when asked, a person who appears to be and function as a White person tells you they are not a White person.


Hypothesis:

Under the system of racism White supremacy White people can DECIDE who is a White person and who is not; they need not ask because being a White person qualifies them to DECIDE.

When a person who appears to be and function as a White person tells you they are NOT a White person they are attempting to avoid racist suspect status.


This experiment is designed to help a VOR counter a person who provides false and/or misleading information in response to the "critical question" (are you a White person?) by using the other 2 compensatory definitions of [White person]:

2. Classified as White by other people who classify themselves as White.

3. FUNCTIONS as a White person in one or all of the nine areas of people activity.




Experiment:

1. Ask a person who appears to look and function as a White person if they are a White person.

2. When a person answers "no", ask them if White people consider [them] to be a White person

3. Ask them if they ever FUNCTION as a White person in one or more of the nine areas of people activity

4. Ask them if they KNOW what a White person is.


Expected results:


1. The suspect will eventually claim they don't know if YOU are a White person.

2. The suspect will refuse to tell you if any other person is a White person

3. The suspect will claim they know what a White person is.







Background:

This experiment grew from a discussion I had today with a White person who responded to the critical question with an unqualified "NO". When I asked him if I was a White person he said "YES". When I pressed him on how he knew I was a White person he backed up and claimed he wasn't sure I was a White person.

But when I asked him if he knew what a White person was he said "YES"


Now I must tell you that this all happened after a discussion of racism in which he admitted that:

1. White people decide who is White.

2. The non white racial classification is a form of mistreatment.


This discussion involved the suspect, myself and a non white female whom the suspect also refused to classify as non white.




Josh


There seem to be two hypotheses and a definition posted in the hypothesis section.

If this is your intent, 1) the definition should precede the hypotheses so that the statement that is being tested for truth is clearly expressed; 2) the hypotheses should be numbered, and; 3) there should be a conclusion section explaining how the data produced in the experiment will validate or invalidate each hypothesis.
_________________
Death of the lower body is certain. Now what?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Dark Switch



Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 100
Location: Europa

PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 5:43 am    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

HelixHair wrote:
Josh wrote:
Note: while putting the previous experiment in the correct format, I came up with another version.





White people who answer "NO" to the critical question


Observed Phenomenon:


You are a non white person and when asked, a person who appears to be and function as a White person tells you they are not a White person.


Hypothesis:

Under the system of racism White supremacy White people can DECIDE who is a White person and who is not; they need not ask because being a White person qualifies them to DECIDE.

When a person who appears to be and function as a White person tells you they are NOT a White person they are attempting to avoid racist suspect status.


This experiment is designed to help a VOR counter a person who provides false and/or misleading information in response to the "critical question" (are you a White person?) by using the other 2 compensatory definitions of [White person]:

2. Classified as White by other people who classify themselves as White.

3. FUNCTIONS as a White person in one or all of the nine areas of people activity.




Experiment:

1. Ask a person who appears to look and function as a White person if they are a White person.

2. When a person answers "no", ask them if White people consider [them] to be a White person

3. Ask them if they ever FUNCTION as a White person in one or more of the nine areas of people activity

4. Ask them if they KNOW what a White person is.


Expected results:


1. The suspect will eventually claim they don't know if YOU are a White person.

2. The suspect will refuse to tell you if any other person is a White person

3. The suspect will claim they know what a White person is.







Background:

This experiment grew from a discussion I had today with a White person who responded to the critical question with an unqualified "NO". When I asked him if I was a White person he said "YES". When I pressed him on how he knew I was a White person he backed up and claimed he wasn't sure I was a White person.

But when I asked him if he knew what a White person was he said "YES"


Now I must tell you that this all happened after a discussion of racism in which he admitted that:

1. White people decide who is White.

2. The non white racial classification is a form of mistreatment.


This discussion involved the suspect, myself and a non white female whom the suspect also refused to classify as non white.




Josh


There seem to be two hypotheses and a definition posted in the hypothesis section.

If this is your intent, 1) the definition should precede the hypotheses so that the statement that is being tested for truth is clearly expressed; 2) the hypotheses should be numbered, and; 3) there should be a conclusion section explaining how the data produced in the experiment will validate or invalidate each hypothesis.

If one hypothesis is that "Under the system of racism White supremacy White people can DECIDE who is a White, person and who is not", then it would seem Josh has received that expected result. This white person has apparently just followed the logic of what was told to him during the conversation/experiment.

He exercised his 'right' as a white person to DECIDE not to admit he was white, to decide Josh was white and disagreed that the self-identified non-white female was non-white.

Did the white person correctly follow the counter-racist logic, but then not reveal truth and promote justice?

The hypothesis is that white people decide (which seems the case), but when they do and it comes from racist logic, it is called rightly called false and/or misleading information.

Not sure if I'm confusing things more.
_________________
Most white people hate Black people. The reason that most white people hate Black people is because whites are not black people. - Neely Fuller Jr.
quoted in Cress Welsing (1991)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
HelixHair



Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Posts: 383
Location: Everywhere that is nowhere

PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 9:52 am    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Dark Switch wrote:
HelixHair wrote:
Josh wrote:
Note: while putting the previous experiment in the correct format, I came up with another version.





White people who answer "NO" to the critical question


Observed Phenomenon:


You are a non white person and when asked, a person who appears to be and function as a White person tells you they are not a White person.


Hypothesis:

Under the system of racism White supremacy White people can DECIDE who is a White person and who is not; they need not ask because being a White person qualifies them to DECIDE.

When a person who appears to be and function as a White person tells you they are NOT a White person they are attempting to avoid racist suspect status.


This experiment is designed to help a VOR counter a person who provides false and/or misleading information in response to the "critical question" (are you a White person?) by using the other 2 compensatory definitions of [White person]:

2. Classified as White by other people who classify themselves as White.

3. FUNCTIONS as a White person in one or all of the nine areas of people activity.




Experiment:

1. Ask a person who appears to look and function as a White person if they are a White person.

2. When a person answers "no", ask them if White people consider [them] to be a White person

3. Ask them if they ever FUNCTION as a White person in one or more of the nine areas of people activity

4. Ask them if they KNOW what a White person is.


Expected results:


1. The suspect will eventually claim they don't know if YOU are a White person.

2. The suspect will refuse to tell you if any other person is a White person

3. The suspect will claim they know what a White person is.







Background:

This experiment grew from a discussion I had today with a White person who responded to the critical question with an unqualified "NO". When I asked him if I was a White person he said "YES". When I pressed him on how he knew I was a White person he backed up and claimed he wasn't sure I was a White person.

But when I asked him if he knew what a White person was he said "YES"


Now I must tell you that this all happened after a discussion of racism in which he admitted that:

1. White people decide who is White.

2. The non white racial classification is a form of mistreatment.


This discussion involved the suspect, myself and a non white female whom the suspect also refused to classify as non white.




Josh


There seem to be two hypotheses and a definition posted in the hypothesis section.

If this is your intent, 1) the definition should precede the hypotheses so that the statement that is being tested for truth is clearly expressed; 2) the hypotheses should be numbered, and; 3) there should be a conclusion section explaining how the data produced in the experiment will validate or invalidate each hypothesis.

If one hypothesis is that "Under the system of racism White supremacy White people can DECIDE who is a White, person and who is not", then it would seem Josh has received that expected result. This white person has apparently just followed the logic of what was told to him during the conversation/experiment.

He exercised his 'right' as a white person to DECIDE not to admit he was white, to decide Josh was white and disagreed that the self-identified non-white female was non-white.

Did the white person correctly follow the counter-racist logic, but then not reveal truth and promote justice?

The hypothesis is that white people decide (which seems the case), but when they do and it comes from racist logic, it is called rightly called false and/or misleading information.

Not sure if I'm confusing things more.


Yeah...it gets circular real fast when a defintion is stated as a hypothesis. I.e., how does the data prove a hypothesis that was "proven" before it started by its definition? But, I'll wait for Josh to identify the hypothesis ot hypotheses, first.
_________________
Death of the lower body is certain. Now what?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Josh



Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 796
Location: Closer

PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 11:10 am    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Dark Switch wrote:
HelixHair wrote:
Josh wrote:
Note: while putting the previous experiment in the correct format, I came up with another version.





White people who answer "NO" to the critical question


Observed Phenomenon:


You are a non white person and when asked, a person who appears to be and function as a White person tells you they are not a White person.


Hypothesis:

Under the system of racism White supremacy White people can DECIDE who is a White person and who is not; they need not ask because being a White person qualifies them to DECIDE.

When a person who appears to be and function as a White person tells you they are NOT a White person they are attempting to avoid racist suspect status.


This experiment is designed to help a VOR counter a person who provides false and/or misleading information in response to the "critical question" (are you a White person?) by using the other 2 compensatory definitions of [White person]:

2. Classified as White by other people who classify themselves as White.

3. FUNCTIONS as a White person in one or all of the nine areas of people activity.




Experiment:

1. Ask a person who appears to look and function as a White person if they are a White person.

2. When a person answers "no", ask them if White people consider [them] to be a White person

3. Ask them if they ever FUNCTION as a White person in one or more of the nine areas of people activity

4. Ask them if they KNOW what a White person is.


Expected results:


1. The suspect will eventually claim they don't know if YOU are a White person.

2. The suspect will refuse to tell you if any other person is a White person

3. The suspect will claim they know what a White person is.







Background:

This experiment grew from a discussion I had today with a White person who responded to the critical question with an unqualified "NO". When I asked him if I was a White person he said "YES". When I pressed him on how he knew I was a White person he backed up and claimed he wasn't sure I was a White person.

But when I asked him if he knew what a White person was he said "YES"


Now I must tell you that this all happened after a discussion of racism in which he admitted that:

1. White people decide who is White.

2. The non white racial classification is a form of mistreatment.


This discussion involved the suspect, myself and a non white female whom the suspect also refused to classify as non white.




Josh


There seem to be two hypotheses and a definition posted in the hypothesis section.

If this is your intent, 1) the definition should precede the hypotheses so that the statement that is being tested for truth is clearly expressed; 2) the hypotheses should be numbered, and; 3) there should be a conclusion section explaining how the data produced in the experiment will validate or invalidate each hypothesis.

If one hypothesis is that "Under the system of racism White supremacy White people can DECIDE who is a White, person and who is not", then it would seem Josh has received that expected result. This white person has apparently just followed the logic of what was told to him during the conversation/experiment.

He exercised his 'right' as a white person to DECIDE not to admit he was white, to decide Josh was white and disagreed that the self-identified non-white female was non-white.

Did the white person correctly follow the counter-racist logic, but then not reveal truth and promote justice?

The hypothesis is that white people decide (which seems the case), but when they do and it comes from racist logic, it is called rightly called false and/or misleading information.

Not sure if I'm confusing things more.





DK, you ALWAYS have the option of run the experiment for yourself and post YOUR results here.


Josh
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Josh



Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 796
Location: Closer

PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 11:13 am    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

HelixHair wrote:
Dark Switch wrote:
HelixHair wrote:
Josh wrote:
Note: while putting the previous experiment in the correct format, I came up with another version.





White people who answer "NO" to the critical question


Observed Phenomenon:


You are a non white person and when asked, a person who appears to be and function as a White person tells you they are not a White person.


Hypothesis:

Under the system of racism White supremacy White people can DECIDE who is a White person and who is not; they need not ask because being a White person qualifies them to DECIDE.

When a person who appears to be and function as a White person tells you they are NOT a White person they are attempting to avoid racist suspect status.


This experiment is designed to help a VOR counter a person who provides false and/or misleading information in response to the "critical question" (are you a White person?) by using the other 2 compensatory definitions of [White person]:

2. Classified as White by other people who classify themselves as White.

3. FUNCTIONS as a White person in one or all of the nine areas of people activity.




Experiment:

1. Ask a person who appears to look and function as a White person if they are a White person.

2. When a person answers "no", ask them if White people consider [them] to be a White person

3. Ask them if they ever FUNCTION as a White person in one or more of the nine areas of people activity

4. Ask them if they KNOW what a White person is.


Expected results:


1. The suspect will eventually claim they don't know if YOU are a White person.

2. The suspect will refuse to tell you if any other person is a White person

3. The suspect will claim they know what a White person is.







Background:

This experiment grew from a discussion I had today with a White person who responded to the critical question with an unqualified "NO". When I asked him if I was a White person he said "YES". When I pressed him on how he knew I was a White person he backed up and claimed he wasn't sure I was a White person.

But when I asked him if he knew what a White person was he said "YES"


Now I must tell you that this all happened after a discussion of racism in which he admitted that:

1. White people decide who is White.

2. The non white racial classification is a form of mistreatment.


This discussion involved the suspect, myself and a non white female whom the suspect also refused to classify as non white.




Josh


There seem to be two hypotheses and a definition posted in the hypothesis section.

If this is your intent, 1) the definition should precede the hypotheses so that the statement that is being tested for truth is clearly expressed; 2) the hypotheses should be numbered, and; 3) there should be a conclusion section explaining how the data produced in the experiment will validate or invalidate each hypothesis.

If one hypothesis is that "Under the system of racism White supremacy White people can DECIDE who is a White, person and who is not", then it would seem Josh has received that expected result. This white person has apparently just followed the logic of what was told to him during the conversation/experiment.

He exercised his 'right' as a white person to DECIDE not to admit he was white, to decide Josh was white and disagreed that the self-identified non-white female was non-white.

Did the white person correctly follow the counter-racist logic, but then not reveal truth and promote justice?

The hypothesis is that white people decide (which seems the case), but when they do and it comes from racist logic, it is called rightly called false and/or misleading information.

Not sure if I'm confusing things more.


Yeah...it gets circular real fast when a defintion is stated as a hypothesis. I.e., how does the data prove a hypothesis that was "proven" before it started by its definition? But, I'll wait for Josh to identify the hypothesis ot hypotheses, first.




Helix,

You ALWAYS have the option to run the experiment yourself and post your OWN results here.



Josh
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dark Switch



Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 100
Location: Europa

PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 1:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Josh wrote:
Dark Switch wrote:
If one hypothesis is that "Under the system of racism White supremacy White people can DECIDE who is a White, person and who is not", then it would seem Josh has received that expected result. This white person has apparently just followed the logic of what was told to him during the conversation/experiment.

He exercised his 'right' as a white person to DECIDE not to admit he was white, to decide Josh was white and disagreed that the self-identified non-white female was non-white.

Did the white person correctly follow the counter-racist logic, but then not reveal truth and promote justice?

The hypothesis is that white people decide (which seems the case), but when they do and it comes from racist logic, it is called rightly called false and/or misleading information.

Not sure if I'm confusing things more.





DK, you ALWAYS have the option of run the experiment for yourself and post YOUR results here.


Josh

I shall endeavour to do so sir, that would be helpful for us all. I'm not confident with any experiment just yet, confusion during experiments can't be good. Could be with field experience the experiments need not be so tight. Obviously my comments were of no interest to you, perhaps you found them critical, but was only trying to show possible causal connections within reported results

Was that a conscious decision to bolden my final sentence?
_________________
Most white people hate Black people. The reason that most white people hate Black people is because whites are not black people. - Neely Fuller Jr.
quoted in Cress Welsing (1991)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Josh



Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 796
Location: Closer

PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Was that a conscious decision to bolden my final sentence?



Yes.

You can clear up any confusion by running the experiment.

One purpose for the experiment is to demonstrate how a White person who tries to decieve you by telling you they are a non white person will be betrayed by their own functioning.

In my example the suspect could not bring himself to state his "girlfriend" is non white even though she says she is non white.

Is that something a non white person does?



Look at it this way:

Im sittin in the prison lunch room and this guy whom I always thought was a guard walks up and tells me he's a prisoner:

"Ive always felt like a prisoner"

"I really identify with prisoners"

"I listen to prisoner music..."

When I ask the inmate he's fucking if she is a prisoner, she says YES.

But when I ask him if the inmate he is fucking is a prisoner he says "I don't know"



Josh
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
HelixHair



Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Posts: 383
Location: Everywhere that is nowhere

PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 6:08 am    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Josh wrote:
HelixHair wrote:
Dark Switch wrote:
HelixHair wrote:
Josh wrote:
Note: while putting the previous experiment in the correct format, I came up with another version.





White people who answer "NO" to the critical question


Observed Phenomenon:


You are a non white person and when asked, a person who appears to be and function as a White person tells you they are not a White person.


Hypothesis:

Under the system of racism White supremacy White people can DECIDE who is a White person and who is not; they need not ask because being a White person qualifies them to DECIDE.

When a person who appears to be and function as a White person tells you they are NOT a White person they are attempting to avoid racist suspect status.


This experiment is designed to help a VOR counter a person who provides false and/or misleading information in response to the "critical question" (are you a White person?) by using the other 2 compensatory definitions of [White person]:

2. Classified as White by other people who classify themselves as White.

3. FUNCTIONS as a White person in one or all of the nine areas of people activity.




Experiment:

1. Ask a person who appears to look and function as a White person if they are a White person.

2. When a person answers "no", ask them if White people consider [them] to be a White person

3. Ask them if they ever FUNCTION as a White person in one or more of the nine areas of people activity

4. Ask them if they KNOW what a White person is.


Expected results:


1. The suspect will eventually claim they don't know if YOU are a White person.

2. The suspect will refuse to tell you if any other person is a White person

3. The suspect will claim they know what a White person is.







Background:

This experiment grew from a discussion I had today with a White person who responded to the critical question with an unqualified "NO". When I asked him if I was a White person he said "YES". When I pressed him on how he knew I was a White person he backed up and claimed he wasn't sure I was a White person.

But when I asked him if he knew what a White person was he said "YES"


Now I must tell you that this all happened after a discussion of racism in which he admitted that:

1. White people decide who is White.

2. The non white racial classification is a form of mistreatment.


This discussion involved the suspect, myself and a non white female whom the suspect also refused to classify as non white.




Josh


There seem to be two hypotheses and a definition posted in the hypothesis section.

If this is your intent, 1) the definition should precede the hypotheses so that the statement that is being tested for truth is clearly expressed; 2) the hypotheses should be numbered, and; 3) there should be a conclusion section explaining how the data produced in the experiment will validate or invalidate each hypothesis.

If one hypothesis is that "Under the system of racism White supremacy White people can DECIDE who is a White, person and who is not", then it would seem Josh has received that expected result. This white person has apparently just followed the logic of what was told to him during the conversation/experiment.

He exercised his 'right' as a white person to DECIDE not to admit he was white, to decide Josh was white and disagreed that the self-identified non-white female was non-white.

Did the white person correctly follow the counter-racist logic, but then not reveal truth and promote justice?

The hypothesis is that white people decide (which seems the case), but when they do and it comes from racist logic, it is called rightly called false and/or misleading information.

Not sure if I'm confusing things more.


Yeah...it gets circular real fast when a defintion is stated as a hypothesis. I.e., how does the data prove a hypothesis that was "proven" before it started by its definition? But, I'll wait for Josh to identify the hypothesis ot hypotheses, first.




Helix,

You ALWAYS have the option to run the experiment yourself and post your OWN results here.



Josh


Why would I run an experiment that I don't believe will yield valid results? That is, that won't test the hypothesis?

If this is going to be a scientific forum producing reliable results that are the basis for knowledge on how to better counter racism, you/we can't skip over the steps in following the logic. To do otherwise is to fool yourself and niggers can't stop being niggers if we continue to engage in self-deception.
_________________
Death of the lower body is certain. Now what?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Dark Switch



Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 100
Location: Europa

PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 7:33 am    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Josh wrote:
Quote:
Was that a conscious decision to bolden my final sentence?



Yes.

You can clear up any confusion by running the experiment.

One purpose for the experiment is to demonstrate how a White person who tries to decieve you by telling you they are a non white person will be betrayed by their own functioning.

In my example the suspect could not bring himself to state his "girlfriend" is non white even though she says she is non white.

Is that something a non white person does?

Isn't the hypothesis to that result something like...this experiment shows how a racial suspect functions differently to a non-white person?

I have no doubt "This experiment is designed to help a VOR counter a person who provides false and/or misleading information in response to the "critical question" (are you a White person?)."
But the example doesn't "use the other 2 compensatory definitions of [White person]:" , perhaps that part should go in the experiment section.

What seems clearer for me now, is that white people decide in their FUNCTIONING what is a white person. But then, we knew this already. So why are we asking them?

Quote:
Look at it this way:

Im sittin in the prison lunch room and this guy whom I always thought was a guard walks up and tells me he's a prisoner:

"Ive always felt like a prisoner"

"I really identify with prisoners"

"I listen to prisoner music..."

When I ask the inmate he's fucking if she is a prisoner, she says YES.

But when I ask him if the inmate he is fucking is a prisoner he says "I don't know"



Josh

Thank you.
_________________
Most white people hate Black people. The reason that most white people hate Black people is because whites are not black people. - Neely Fuller Jr.
quoted in Cress Welsing (1991)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Josh



Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 796
Location: Closer

PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 8:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
What seems clearer for me now, is that white people decide in their FUNCTIONING what is a white person. But then, we knew this already. So why are we asking them?




Because its the easiest way to get the answer.


Josh
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Counter-Racism Work/Study Project Forum Index -> Counter-Racism Science Project All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Web CalendarShopping MallDonations