You've been condescending and insulting, so I can't always be civil. But at least I didn't curse you. Can you dish it out and not take it?
Find the quote where I said that black lesbians don't belong in a Black Panther comic. Find the direct quote where I said that. Not your estimation or speculation, but the direct quote.
When I respond to you, you keep saying I'm 'misaligning' or 'refocusing' or whatever. You are basically casting aspersions on me, saying I'm being underhanded, which you have done throughout these conversations. I explained to you why I liked Batwoman. Her race had nothing to do with it. I have said over and over and over I don't want the Ayo and Aneka relationship given priority over Black Panther. If they were two new heterosexual characters I would not want them given priority either.
But let me repeat, I don't endorse homosexuality and I do believe that homosexuality is being promoted or celebrated in the media today. Jason Collins didn't get an invite to the State of the Union because of what he did on the basketball court, he got it for coming out, and that's just one example. Heck, President Obama went to Africa and lectured some Africans about LGBT rights, another example. You can call it inclusion, okay, let's call it that. But its concerted and Coates is doing that here. Of course he has the right to do so, it is a part of black life. My concern is that that will be at the forefront, because it will be more acceptable to whites, than other social, political, and economic issues that are more thornier. It's a safe route, a path of least resistance that possibly could sideline Black Panther. As I've said before, I don't know for certain. It is the first issue. But I am allowed the freedom to speculate. Unless I'm not allowed to do that either.
I said I looked at For Harriet, but I did not look at the site thoroughly, I guess I need to spell it out more directly for you, since you are always looking for something to offend you. You accuse me of being defensive, but for a good deal of these discussions you've been hyperventilating. I should stop responding a while ago, but I did want to understand where you were coming from. I read one article, which I partly agreed with on the site. Now, am I supposed to agree with every article on For Harriet?
Perhaps what you perceive as misaligning is you just not reading comprehensively what I'm writing. Or its getting twisted up in your own mind and self-righteous desire to cape and smite anyone who disagrees with you or you think disagrees with you.
Im being civil now and especially after bluezulu's last post. Can't you be the bigger man and be civil or at least do as the moderator asked? Or are you looking for a fight with your "can you dish it out and not take it" schoolyard taunt? Cause I think I've shown I can take it and give out even more from various posts so far.
And I really don't see how you got me not being "progressive" enough with the whole Batwoman thing cause my post was more about you than me accepting that LGBT is transracial. Since I'm guessing you can actually read the only other conclusion is that you might be trying to misalign my points...which is a form of redirecting. I could be wrong though. And you HAVE been redirecting, which isn't necessarily underhanded but a defense tactic. Again it's akin to white people bringing up "black on black crime" when we are talking about police brutality on black people. Bringing up "misandry" when one is talking about "misogyny" like you did is the same thing.
And again, you're not being entirely truthful...you didn't just say that the Ayo and Aneka relationship should not take priority over Black Panther....you said and I quote "this doesn't belong in a Black Panther comic"..that again was a direct quote. It's supported by the fact you just said that you don't endorse homosexuality...which is your choice and right. It's my choice and right to challenge that viewpoint. You're "allowed" to do anything you want. I'm allowed to refute and speak on it.
And of course homosexuality is being promoted and celebrated in the media...and it is concerted...though there is a segment of media and even cities that still condones it. But there's nothing wrong with that because promoting something is a way of gaining acceptance. A concerted effort focuses it and strengthens the cause. And just like you "cape" for fighting racism and heterosexual black relationships...others "cape" for that AND these other issues as well. Like Coates probably does.
So your point?
Sigh...dude...if you think me laughing at you looking at one article on for Harriet and finding it not thorough is me being"offended" or "hyperventilating". You've really got other issues. I wasn't even looking for you to find it to be thorough. I was just providing you a source for a question you asked. And again, who said you had to look at or even agree with EVERY article on the site? You're projecting again.
Yeah, you should stop responding now...you're flailing about, arguing points that were never there, and obviously still looking, in your polite manner, for a fight.
Let it go.
But of course, you most likely won't.
Show the direct quote where I wrote what you accuse me of saying. It's easy to just look up what I've written, the passage where I wrote that, and show me and everyone else that I said that about Aneka and Ayo, show the quote and bust me. But you can't because I didn't say it. I didn't really read much else what you said here because you're just talking hot air now. You got caught out there, you thought you saw something perhaps and just went off, making assumptions and accusations against me, not to mention insults, over something I didn't even write. Doesn't sound very inclusive or progressive of you, now does it? Sounds like you were doing some of that reactionary defensive stuff you accused me of. Projecting much?
And you're recommending that I should stop responding now sounds a lot like you want me to shut up, you want to silence me. Weren't you going on and on about inclusion and other voices being heard? I guess its the voices that you consider valuable or worthy should continue talk.
But one more thing...I've been trying to figure out the best way to explain what I see as a contradiction in your whole progressive, male feminist pose. The 'b' word, as you would surely agree, has been used to denigrate women. So when a man calls another man the 'b' word he is feminizing him, which is meant to be an insult. So, by what you said to me you were attempting to feminize me, calling me 'b-made', which you elaborated on was being soft, and yet you're so down with the feminist cause. Yet when you get angry you resort to using feminizing as an insult. You don't see the contradiction in that, the hypocrisy in that? And the whole idea of seeing a 'soft' dude as lesser, yet you had an issue with 'aggressive masculinity' like a previous post. I don't know if all the ideas swirling around your head due to your books, lectures, and table talk have congealed into anything consistent in your own mind.
Emperor, let me be clear with you as well...
1. are you actually saying that you did not exactly make this statement in regards to the lesbian couple in Coates book? : "this doesnt belong in a Black Panther comic". Because its exactly what you said. Maybe you meant to write "it doesnt belong as a main topic in this book" or something like that, but im certain I read that. I could go back some pages and hope you didnt alter it, (not saying you would but anything is possible) but it is what you said. I rarely address what I think is being implied or read into anything...I argue what was actually said and you did actually say that. But after I post this, I will go back and attempt to find the actual quote. But it wont be about "busting" you but actually arguing what was said.
2. No, no, no...I dont want to silence you emperor. For the most part I think your posts are often fair and well presented despite some disagreements or what I see as you projecting or redirecting the yopic (misogyny/misandry) but YOU said you shouldve probably stopped answering me awhile back (you DID say that too, and again im addressing what was actually SAID) and I AGREED that maybe you should stop because you seemed in your last few posts to be flailing and at this point looking for a petty argument. You have every right to your opinion and it should be included...heck Id say that to a KKK member. All I said is that what you say also has the right to be argued and disagreed with. Whether i or anyone finds it disturbing or not.
3. I got insulting not over your opinion and points, but your own projections and hyperbolic aspersions...statements like "evil straight black men" and "you'd be surprised since im a straight black man, but" were you projecting thoughts on me or reading falsely into things I never said. And it was tiring. Thats not an opinion, thats you using hyperbole to cast projections on me to make it look like I was saying all hetero black males were "evil" or "non-progressive" or whatever other negative term you tried to claim I was implying. Again, being critical of us and speaking about things we could maybe be more progressive in is a far cry from me ever implying were "evil".
But let me also add...for you who genuinely bought this up and Booshman who erroneously is using this to create yet another nonsensical point: just because someone may be "progressive" or "enlightened" in their views as both of you seem to say doesn't mean they can't get vitriolic or annoyed and even insulting or prepared to fight if they choose to. Having progressive views doesn't mean you're the Dalai Lama...just means you have certain social views. Which brings me to the "b" word as you call it...
4. Ive explained this in a post to you before. But I will do it again more thoroughly this time:
the "b" word presently has various usages and connotations. and as i said, it means something completely different when applied to women...it means a female dog or an overly problematic woman and THAT is denigrating to women. Many feminist minded women have RECLAIMED the word to mean "tough woman" and is used in exclamations like "bitches get sh*t done" and so forth. there is even a feminist magazine called "bitch"now.
the word means something different when applied to men and women, and even scholarly women AND men use it to refer to someone weak in character or as you say "soft". And because this is a trait a man or a woman can have but is especially denigrating to the male ego when he's being of weak character, (because most, as youre doing, always associates it with a woman...or being gay) the word is applied. In this instance it has absolutely nothing to do with women since its never been used to desrcibe them as "weak". So it's not "feminizing" you its meant to say in the instances I used it that you were being "weak" in character.
But even though I still think you were casting projections with your exclamations meant to imply that I was saying things that I never said, I"ll be a decent human about it and apologize to you, whther you take it oe not.
5. Being "aggressive" and being "assertive" is two different things...and I dont think I used that actual term, probably "toxic masculinity" which is a bit different...but maybe im wrong and will go back and see. In any case again the term "soft"in this instance was to describe one of weaker character, not "soft" as in having empathy or emotional feelings that doesnt make someone lose focus or start defensive rants for no need. its all in context. And again had nothing to do with feminizing you.
