“Mexico's per capita GDP is higher than China's. It doesn't need to industrialize like China has in order to be successful.”
Crabtree Nick on Dec 7, 2013 at 09:28:37
“I didn't mean it that way. Pro-development people usually insist on factory-building to take advantage of European and US demands for cheap labor. Mexico's industries are plentiful, but not as heavy as China.”
“"Considering that I am probably both your chronological senior and intellectual superior, caution in making bitter and indefensible assumptions would be well-advised on your part, sonny."
"Probably"? Hmmm...I guess you're "probably" not that confident about either of those things. You might be right on age (but then that just means your life has been devoid of the experiences necessary to give you the perspective needed to adequately defend your positions), but I actually have no qualms saying outright that I'm more intelligent than you. And it's not even because of my degrees, the prestige of the universities I've attended, or my current academic positions. It's because of your inability to use nuance when formulating arguments or perceiving the world as well as your tendency to allow your negative visceral reactions toward others to render you incapable of examining them with any depth.”
“"As such, pigheadedly continuing to claim that Rice’s immoral and likely criminal actions under Bush -- a bill of attainder to which you at least pay lip service -- are irrelevant to holding a Stanford professorship and administrative position is illogical and dishonest."
As such, pigheadedly continuing to claim that Rice is unqualified for the position due to her actions under Bush is evident of a mind incapable of engaging in nuanced discussion.
"Do you also believe that Nazis – whether prosecuted or not -- should be awarded teaching positions...as long as they can 'perform their academic duties competently' -- as if their human rights abuses are...:
We're talking about administrative positions, not teaching ones, but whatever. My answer is YES regardless (if you change the word in your question from "SHOULD" to "CAN"). Here's the funny thing: in order for your analogy to work, the Nazis in question would need to have had a respectable career teaching at the college level at a major university prior to serving Hitler. If their post-Hitler life is rife with evidence that their behavior under Hitler was indicative of the constraints of living under Hitler rather than of any consistent moral depravity, then YES. Because then there's no reason to believe that their behavior will reflect Nazi values.
And lastly, what you obviously don't know is that former Nazis ACTUALLY HELD senior government roles in post-WWII West Germany. And yet, no more ethnic cleansing. Which makes my point and kills yours. Again.”
“"Each of your comments suggests that your cognitive-dissonance is morphing progressively into an obsessive-compulsive disorder."
Says the person incapable of understanding why her predictions of global moral depravity in a person haven't been confirmed by reality. Got it. Thanks. Now go take a social psych class and lay off the philosophy for awhile.
“She behaved unethically under Bush, but not at Stanford” completely misses my point that repugnant moral character and the concomitant need for moral accountability are not defeasible by dint of shifting social positions or roles."
Never said they were defensible. However, I did say that they didn't render her incapable or unqualified for academic work (a point you continue to dispute WITHOUT citing any evidence AT ALL), a domain within which she has thrived historically. Allusions to repugnant moral character and the concomitant need for moral accountability miss my point that she's capable of performing effectively as a university administrator. THAT has ALWAYS been the point. See, funny thing about this conversation is that you entered AFTER the topic had already been established and are now trying to change what the debate was about since your original argument regarding her tarnished moral compass was a losing one (well, so is your current argument, but still). The leitmotif of your argument is the idea that immoral behavior under Bush rendered Rice incapable of adhering to the standards of an academic environment. Reality has proven you wrong.”
“"For example, NYC’s ‘stop-and-frisk’ policy cannot be justified by the circular argument that because social forces converged to make it official policy, its unwarranted and morally heinous consequences are thereby moot."
Your analogies are atrocious. Where did I say the consequences of Rice's actions were "moot" because of the situation she was in? Go ahead. Show me. I'll be waiting.
Once again, the invocation of the power of situations simply killed your ridiculously broad speculation regarding Rice's propensity to behave unethically. She behaved unethically under Bush, but not at Stanford. Therefore, your speculation about indelible stains on character rendering her unfit for academia is as laughable as your attempts to avoid discussing Rice's current performance as a Stanford administrator.”
“"...on the illogical grounds that because social context helps explain action, it trumps free will and personal responsibility."
Whether it trumps those things (and whether free will even exists) is open for debate. I never claimed that anyway. Social context helping to explain behavior allows us to know that behavior in one situation doesn't necessarily predict behavior in another. You'll learn that when you get a bit older.
"a person’s or institution’s moral and legal accountability for their actions does not vanish, or become more acceptable, with a change in their social situation"
Contra YOUR misconceptions, I neither said nor implied that accountability vanishes or becomes acceptable. The invocation of situational antecedents to behavior was a rebuttal to your ridiculous assertion that Rice's tenure under Bush had stained her moral character to the point where she was incapable of being an effective administrator...a claim you made while conveniently choosing to not cite ANY evidence that her current tenure at Stanford was characterized by incompetent behavior. So she's doing a good job in her current situation DESPITE her unethical behavior in her previous situation.
"Reprehensible actions remain indelibly part of moral character, and their future relevance depends on acknowledgment, adjudication and punishment."
And how have those actions negatively impacted Rice's performance at Stanford? Not that I expect you to actually ANSWER this question...you've been running from it for awhile now.
Once again, you sound like a bitter partisan with an axe to grind.”
Portent401 on Dec 4, 2013 at 21:59:31
“Each of your comments suggests that your cognitive-dissonance is morphing progressively into an obsessive-compulsive disorder. “She behaved unethically under Bush, but not at Stanford” completely misses my point that repugnant moral character and the concomitant need for moral accountability are not defeasible by dint of shifting social positions or roles. Humans are not mere pegs upon which the clothes of their social roles are hanged but are rather chronologically, narratively and existentially integrated, identical beings responsible for all of their historical actions. As such, pigheadedly continuing to claim that Rice’s immoral and likely criminal actions under Bush -- a bill of attainder to which you at least pay lip service -- are irrelevant to holding a Stanford professorship and administrative position is illogical and dishonest. Do you also believe that Nazis – whether prosecuted or not -- should be awarded teaching positions at major universities, as long as they can 'perform their academic duties competently' -- as if their human rights abuses are immaterial to the humanistic values a university embraces and embodies? Considering that I am probably both your chronological senior and intellectual superior, caution in making bitter and indefensible assumptions would be well-advised on your part, sonny.”
Portent401 on Dec 4, 2013 at 21:33:40
“You sound like 'One Note Charlie' who lacks the merest semblance of understanding of the implications of your moral values. Tant pis.”
“"It is disrespectful to stage or participate in a protest on any issue at an event that is aimed at saving lives."
No. It. Isn't.
Especially when the protest still allows the event to take place.
"You and Spelman FMLA organization cannot speak for ALL BLACK WOMEN."
Obviously. I never claimed to speak for all black women, BUT the women at Spelman can certainly be an example to other black women by showing Nelly that misogyny won't be celebrated or even tolerated at Spelman...and that's exactly what they did. Kudos to them.
"I do not feel disrespected by Nelly's video at all, and I am a black woman."
And I'm sure some black people don't feel offended by the rhetoric and political goals of the KKK. That doesn't mean Morehouse College or Howard University should allow a klan rally for charity on their campuses. You don't seem to realize that allowing people a campus appearance under certain situations is tantamount to saying their behavior is acceptable. Spelman would be an unserious college if they stayed silent about Nelly's misogyny and simply let him perform on campus.”
ConsciousOfEverythin on Dec 1, 2013 at 04:16:00
BUT the women at Spelman can certainly be an example to other black women by showing Nelly that misogyny won't be celebrated or even tolerated at Spelman...and that's exactly what they did. Kudos to them.
Spelman does not represent nor is the college an example of other black women in terms of showing their lack of appreciation for misogynistic images in Nelly video. Again, the women in the video were grown.
Spelman would be an unserious college if they stayed silent about Nelly's misogyny and simply let him perform on campus.
I am unsure how you factor in the KKK as an analogy to prove your point. This is about black against black, which has nothing to do with racist whites. Maybe you could have used the New Black Panthers or some other black organization. The KKK comment is far left.
In my opinion, Spelman is an unserious college that backed FMLA (Asha) reckless protest, and the stance has divided the black community on this controversial issue relating to Nelly's sister, Jackie. Black people have a history of not working together for a common cause. SMH.”
Nov 30, 2013 at 03:55:10
“"Thank you for summing it up to the fact that Spelman's FMLA organization headed by Asha trivialized Jackie's need for a bone marrow match for the opportunity to target Nelly's video."
Thank you for showing that you don't understand what you read. Spelman held the marrow drive anyway, showing that they know a good cause when they see one BUT do not want to be associated with a misogynist. Why you can't understand this logic is a mystery to me.
"Respect had nothing to do with Jackie's needs."
Once Nelly chose to lead a drive to save Jackie by asking black women for help, respect (or in this case, DISrespect) of black women became a relevant issue. YES or NO: Do YOU ask for help from people you disrespect on a regular basis? If you do, do you actually expect them to help?
"Nelly's work ethics in terms of endorsing misogyny in my music should have never been on the table..."
That's your opinion. Which goes against the principles on which Spelman (a PRIVATE college that's under no obligation to give a speaking slot to anyone) was founded.
"Every person will have to answer to God whether their actions be good or evil."
I hope Nelly has fun explaining why he thought it was okay to amass great wealth by disrespecting others.”
ConsciousOfEverythin on Nov 30, 2013 at 05:47:34
“If you repeat yourself one million times about Spelman holding a Bone Marrow Drive, my opinion of the issue would remain unchange. It is disrespectful to stage or participate in a protest on any issue at an event that is aimed at saving lives. Are you insane?
You and Spelman FMLA organization cannot speak for ALL BLACK WOMEN. In the same manner that Nelly's video does not represent all black women, FMLA does not represent the opinions of ALL BLACK WOMEN.
I do not feel disrespected by Nelly's video at all, and I am a black woman. If the women were underage, my stance would be different. Nonetheless, all the women in the video were grown and of age to make rational decision on how THEY not ME want to be depicted to others.
If some black women choose to rob a bank, does it mean that all black women are robbers? If some black women choose to have babies out of wedlock, does I mean that all black women are on welfare? Think about it. One video does not represent all black women.
“So you accused me of saying situations JUSTIFY behavior (when I never made that claim), yet MY argument is "feeble and confused"? Lol at the irony. Thanks for the laugh. You can't even correctly articulate what you're arguing against...your weak rebuttals are indicative of that reality.
And you STILL have NO REBUTTAL for Rice's CURRENT PERFORMANCE at Stanford and how that performance doesn't reflect the moral failings that characterized her tenure under Bush. In other words, she doesn't behave immorally as university administrator so evidence indicates she'd be fine for Penn State.”
Portent401 on Nov 30, 2013 at 21:24:45
“Any well-educated undergraduate knows the difference between explanation and understanding, descriptive statements and normative judgments, as well as the need to beware the naturalistic fallacy’s proscription against deriving an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ -- absent bridge premises.
Your lame ‘reasoning’ would laughably justify hiring war criminals of any stripe, whether Nazis or neocons like Rice, on the illogical grounds that because social context helps explain action, it trumps free will and personal responsibility. Contra your misconceptions, a person’s or institution’s moral and legal accountability for their actions does not vanish, or become more acceptable, with a change in their social situation. Reprehensible actions remain indelibly part of moral character, and their future relevance depends on acknowledgment, adjudication and punishment. For example, NYC’s ‘stop-and-frisk’ policy cannot be justified by the circular argument that because social forces converged to make it official policy, its unwarranted and morally heinous consequences are thereby moot.
That you don’t apprehend this reasonable position merely demonstrates your intellectual shortcomings and moral obtuseness.”
Portent401 on Nov 30, 2013 at 12:47:22
“Human beings are more than their social roles. As a result, their moral actions in any one role move with them, as constitutive of their character, from role to role. The crux of our disagreement lies both in our divergent premises regarding the explanation of Rice’s actions in the Bush Administration, as well as in our varying conceptions of the relevant consequences of her actions during that tenure for her subsequent job qualifications at Stanford.
I hold first that Rice’s authorization of torture and conscious deception of Americans into launching an aggressive, unnecessary and ultimately immoral war against Iraq are war crimes that should disqualify her from holding any university position, irrespective of her having escaped legal accountability by dint of Obama’s political exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Second, I argue that Stanford erred grievously by dismissing the moral relevance of Rice’s actions to her university duties and in so doing, violated its own primary raison d’etre -- truth-telling and the pursuit of truth.
You, my friend, are the one befuddled by the complex relationship between explanation and justification, as well as defense over your absence of academic cache, as your droll grammatical misconstruction reveals: “As a (supposed) instructor, I figured you'd be aware of the importance of choosing words carefully.” These flaws reveal a defensive, intellectual manqué stubbornly incapable of acknowledging faulty premises and their highly contestable conclusions.”
Nov 28, 2013 at 13:15:14
“Nelly's health was fine. So he could've stopped being a misogynist from day one.
"Show me where misogyny has killed anyone in the black community, and I will relent."
Do you really have time to sift through links of black women being physically and psychologically abused by the the black men in their lives until they were killed or committed suicide? If so, I'll provide some in the next post. If you knew ANYTHING about the black community you'd already know that the way men treat women has been a problem for a LONG time and Nelly is just another opportunist getting rich by trivializing this misogyny. And for some reason, he was surprised when women didn't appreciate this.
"Show me where doctors are conducting research on how to cure misogyny, and I will relent."
Misogyny isn't a disease the way cancer or AIDS are. Are you really this ignorant? Misogyny is a state of mind. AND there are countless workshops/programs (run by psychologists, therapists, social workers, etc.) in existence to teach people to think differently.
"Someday, if you live long enough, you will have health issues and concerns, and then you will be on notice."
I've ALREADY had health issues. And my friends, family, and other acquaintances, supported me...because I didn't spend my time disrespecting their race/religion/gender prior to my health issues and my asking them for support. Funny how treating people with respect makes them more likely to respect you. What a concept!”
ConsciousOfEverythin on Nov 30, 2013 at 02:44:44
“Thank you for summing it up to the fact that Spelman's FMLA organization headed by Asha trivialized Jackie's need for a bone marrow match for the opportunity to target Nelly's video. SMH.
Respect had nothing to do with Jackie's needs. Yet, Asha's protest only hurt Jackie, not Nelly. He is still making money and videos, and currently on the top of his game in terms of a career. Spelman acted irresponsibly towards Jackie.
Nelly's work ethics in terms of endorsing misogyny in my music should have never been on the table to negotiate Jackie's life by preventing her brother from attending the event to draw black women to being tested, which was all due to reckless protesters (Asha and others in FMLA).
Every person will have to answer to God whether their actions be good or evil.”
“Was the dinner party at your house? No, it wasn't...you acknowledged that in the initial post. So you could've just excused yourself from the room or found another seat if the e-cigarette was irritating. No one forced you to stay in the room and be bothered and it wasn't your house.”
budalla on Nov 25, 2013 at 22:18:56
“It was my girlfriends house and her birthday party, And she was embarrassed by her friend's rudeness. Half the table talked about the woman's behavior after she left. A fine impression she left.”
“"A social psychology course would teach you that the Nuremberg Defense of just following (illegitimate) orders is morally fallacious."
Obviously. I teach that. And that's a weak support for your current rebuttal. Situations DO impact behavior. I didn't say they JUSTIFY behavior. An otherwise normal person being egged on by friends is more likely to commit a crime than he would've been if no one egged him on. It doesn't JUSTIFY the crime. It's called language precision. As a (supposed) instructor, I figured you'd be aware of the importance of choosing words carefully. The reason why your position has been so weak from square one is because you organize your arguments using flimsy logic, speculation, and hyperbolic language. So, the fact that Ms. Rice has been fine as a Stanford administrator kills your original point that her time with Bush somehow rendered her incapable of effectively functioning in an academic environment. If your position was valid, Ms. Rice would've continued her lies and retroactive justifications for questionable Stanford practices (as a wealthy private school free from the regulations of the California state legislature, Stanford has countless opportunities to go astray).
And, regarding Nazis, if the situation wasn't such a strong determinant of behavior, the ones who escaped to South America would've continued killing certain minorities. But neither of those things happened. So your moral tirade is just the rant of a bitter partisan.”
Portent401 on Nov 28, 2013 at 23:03:06
“What a feeble and confused display of intellectual pretension and fallacious argumentation. More to follow”
Nov 21, 2013 at 19:36:38
“"When Michelangelo paints pictures of women in the nude, who is he offending."
Didn't your parents teach you how to think critically? Nelly's objectification is clear by how he has them act in his videos combined with the lyrics. Have you ever WATCHED the Tip Drill music video or have you been defending Nelly from a position of ignorance this entire time.
"In most of the paintings of men, their testicles are covered. Why do you think that is? Objectifying women?”
Irrelevant. Your analogies are atrocious. Nudity does not automatically equate to objectification. Meanwhile, Nelly's "Tip Drill" video includes lyrics that explicitly state degrading things about women.”
ConsciousOfEverythin on Nov 21, 2013 at 20:00:21
“I have seen the video a few times. Not my thing, but...I am not judging Nelly. Grown women need to make better choices. There are no underage girls in the video.
There are bigger issues in the black community than misogyny. For example, guns and drugs.
How about focusing on health in terms of incurable diseases such as leukemia, lupus, sickle cells, and etc. because whether it is black or white men putting women in video and stating offensive things to them, misogyny continues because women contribute to the problem.
Again, nudity from Michelangelo without words (critical thinking) and Playboy magazine with words and images are not any different than Nelly's art, except in this case of race matters.
Did FMLA protest against Robin Thicke's (Ft. T.I, and Pharrell) "Blurred Lines" video? No...Queens University students protested against the song because women were objectified and rape was an issue in a verse "You know you want it".
So, if T.I.'s or Pharrell's family member need medical help, I wonder whether Spelman will negotiate their lives for a conversation.”
Nov 21, 2013 at 19:32:59
“"Death is not just for one person. Your day will come when you will be faced with the same challenge."
I'll never be faced with the "challenge" of asking for help from people I've spent my career objectifying.
"The HELP was not for Nelly but for JACKIE, who died from leukemia."
Read the article...Jackie got her "help" since the drive still happened. Nelly wanted help in the form of support for his presence at Spelman despite his sexist music. He didn't get it. So he didn't show up. Good riddance.
"You will stand before God someday and will have to answer for your reckless insidious comments."
You too...it'd serve you right if God was a woman.
"As far as the difference between "Diplomacy" and "Democracy", do some academic research on the definitions."
You're the one who thinks those words are synonyms. YOU do the research.
"My definition of democracy as it applies to Nelly's situation with Spelman is that he was entitled to be treated equally because he broke no laws in the video. He is not a criminal. Get a clue."
This might be the least intelligent thing you've posted so far. Just because someone isn't a criminal doesn't ENTITLE them to use college facilities to promote their agenda. Spelman is a private college whose value system preaches FEMALE EMPOWERMENT and stands against misogyny. Nelly profits from misogyny. So he got what he deserved: a verbal slapdown.”
ConsciousOfEverythin on Nov 22, 2013 at 15:37:35
“Health is empowerment, without good health a person can do nothing. Get a clue!
You words: "Spelman is a private college whose value system preaches FEMALE EMPOWERMENT and stands against misogyny". SMH.
***Show me where misogyny has killed anyone in the black community, and I will relent.
***Show me where doctors are conducting research on how to cure misogyny, and I will relent.
Someday, if you live long enough, you will have health issues and concerns, and then you will be on notice.”
“What circular reasoning and myopia have I exhibited? Be specific. Here's the myopia YOU'VE displayed:
Failure to understand the power that situations have on people's behavior. You'd flunk MY social psychology class.
For example, Michael Vick owned a family dog that he took great care of and let his daughters play with. Meanwhile, he tortured and killed dogs with his business partners at Bad Newz Kennelz (this is how they spelled it). Your inability to appraise people in a nuanced way would've led you to assume that Michael Vick was a psychopath who couldn't be trusted around ANY dogs when, in reality, his ability to separate his love of his family dog from his "business" with those other dogs is evidence that people are complex and that their behavior can't be generalized without first understanding the situations within which they operate. In Vick's case, his situation/environment (the South) was one where dog-fighting was common even among people who kept dogs as house pets.
And in Ms. Rice's case, comparing her behavior and performance at Stanford pre-Bush with her behavior in Bush Cabinet and her behavior at Stanford post-Bush makes my point. In the Stanford situations she was a competent administrator who valued academic excellence and freedom. As a Bush cabinet member, she lied to the American people, kept many secrets, ignored people's civil rights, etc. to maintain Bush's agenda. If your reasoning was correct, we would've seen similar behavior at Stanford post-Bush. We didn't, which makes my point.”
Portent401 on Nov 25, 2013 at 00:04:40
“Your attempt to justify Rice’s war crimes – and subsequent Stanford job -- by appealing to some nebulous social psychological rationale of the “power that situations have on people's behavior” is risible. A social psychology course would teach you that the Nuremberg Defense of just following (illegitimate) orders is morally fallacious. (To wit, Nuremberg Principle No. IV: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.")
Besides approving torture, Rice retroactively justified the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq not on grounds of thwarting any real threat to US security but “by saying that otherwise Iraqi President Saddam Hussein wasn’t going anywhere” and “you were not going to have a different Middle East with Saddam Hussein at the center of it.”…“We faced the outcome of an ideology of hatred throughout the Middle East that had to be dealt with. Saddam Hussein was a part of that old Middle East. The new Iraq will be a part of the new Middle East, and we will all be safer.”
“But this doctrine – that the Bush administration has the right to invade other nations for reasons as vague as social engineering – represents a repudiation of the Nuremberg Principles and the United Nations Charter’s ban on aggressive war, both formulated largely by American leaders six decades ago.” – Robert Parry, Condi, War Crimes & the Press”
“"Your apparent privileging of Rice’s race above her character reduces to an -- ironically unconscious, perhaps -- expression of racism itself. "
And where exactly did I do that? Context matters. Here's what the first poster (the person who started this thread) said:
"I'm sure you can list the many other notable African Americans who hold significant positions at this institution that would justify their interest in Ms. Rice."
He/she mentioned race first, so I responded in a relevant manner. If he/she hadn't mentioned race, I wouldn't have either. Ms. Rice would be qualified regardless of her race, though I'd argue that the stereotyping and hostile environment faced by black women who are high on the career ladder makes Ms. Rice's ability to thrive even more noteworthy than it would've been if she were a white male. I'm privileging her job experience above after seeing that her stint in the Bush administration has clearly not prevented her from doing a good job at Stanford.
"Asking fundamental questions about humans’ actions and values..."
Looking at her ACTUAL actions would be a more effective way to judge her performance at this point...she has been at Stanford post-2008. You're undone by speculation. Speculation is only worthwhile when certain information is unavailable. That's not the case here. We both know she can do a good job as an administrator. That's the relevant criterion for Penn State's Board of Trustees.”
Nov 21, 2013 at 00:32:38
“Ironic that you accuse me of misspelled words when you can't even spell "d-i-p-l-o-m-a-c-y". Btw, just because you don't know what a word means doesn't mean it's "misspelled". Try expanding your vocabulary. Maybe then you'll also learn how to formulate a coherent argument. And then there's this gem from your above post:
"Therefore, I am will repeat a recent post."
In response to that gem, I think "I am will call you unintelligent." Lol
Did you read the article? You should be laughing at your own ignorance. Spelman College STILL held the drive after Nelly withdrew funding...meaning that the women at Spelman were mature enough to see the value of the drive while being intelligent enough to recognize that Nelly was a misogynist who didn't deserve their respect.
And what evidence do you have that a bone marrow donor would've been found if Nelly had been there? Your baseless speculation is childish. Learn to be logical.
"Proper Order: Family & Health First..."
Proper order: Nelly has to foresight to realize that:
1. If he's going to objectify women, he better not expect support from educated women.
2a. He objectifies the women and then holds the bone marrow drive at an all men's school like Morehouse.
2b. He doesn't objectify women and then holds the drive at Spelman.
Help from others isn't unconditional and people don't get free passes just because a family member is dying. If you burn bridges, you better learn to SWIM across that river.”
ConsciousOfEverythin on Nov 21, 2013 at 19:05:41
“Wow. Not only are you childish and uneducated, but you are inhumane, without a valid premise for your comments. SMH.
Read your post a few times:"Help from others isn't unconditional and people don't get free passes just because a family member is dying". A free pass...wow. You are evil to the core! You do not one iota of humanity in your DNA.
Death is not just for one person. Your day will come when you will be faced with the same challenge.
The HELP was not for Nelly but for JACKIE, who died from leukemia. If you can live with the death of an innocent black woman, who missed the opportunity to get a match for bone marrow all for the sake of judging her brother's (Nelly) artistic work, then it is on you.
You will stand before God someday and will have to answer for your reckless insidious comments.
Take a seat. I don't misspell words. As far as the difference between "Diplomacy" and "Democracy", do some academic research on the definitions.
My definition of democracy as it applies to Nelly's situation with Spelman is that he was entitled to be treated equally because he broke no laws in the video. He is not a criminal. Get a clue.
When Michelangelo paints pictures of women in the nude, who is he offending. In most of the paintings of men, their testicles are covered. Why do you think that is? Objectifying women?”
Nov 20, 2013 at 14:02:16
“"How does Nelly treat "poor women like dirt"? You need to educate yourself."
Practice what you preach. You've obviously never listened to "Tip Drill".
"Girls grow up wanting to be in any music video."
Yes, because your baseless stereotyping really strengthens your argument. Well done. As if men play no role in this whole situation. Are you really this ignorant or is this just an elaborate joke? No one said they were drafted like prostitutes.
"Training girls to choose education starts at home and within the community before they go to Nelly and others requesting to dance in videos."
And there's the icing on your cake of ignorance. So now it's all women's fault for actively seeking objectification. Because I'm sure Nelly and other rappers NEVER actively seek to hire women for their music videos. Right? Lol.”
Nov 20, 2013 at 13:56:36
“Given your "let's be clear" statement, I expected a better response.
Jackie didn't receive "maltreatment" and "backlash". Nelly did. That's why the bone marrow drive STILL HAPPENED when Nelly withdrew funding. So saying that FMLA caused harm to Jackie is intellectually dishonest.
You're clearly unschooled in how corporations work, so here's one reality: for efficiency reasons, profitable subsidiaries typically receive a lot of autonomy from their parent corporatons (unless the subsidiary becomes unprofitable). It'd be too costly in terms of time and money for parent corporations to review and greenlight everything their subisidiaries do. Nelly was making money while portraying women in a certain light. Motown gave him autonomy. He didn't have to produce the record. He CHOSE to. Stop making excuses.
"Nelly did not need women of Spelman to respect him..."
Actually, he did. Take a remedial class in diplomacy if you think respect is so trivial when it comes to asking for others' help.
"Would you want someone examining your career to determine whether to help you save the life of a family member?"
YES, I would!. I bet you didn't see that coming! Character matters. And I wouldn't be stupid enough to objectify women and endorse misogyny prior to asking women for help. Just like I wouldn't expect the students of Morehouse College to rally in support of a KKK member whose sibling needs an organ donation.”
ConsciousOfEverythin on Nov 20, 2013 at 20:54:55
“Democracy? LMBO. Listen Booker T. Washington compromising caused a black woman to die. We don't compromise a person's life for the sake of recognition in a protest that could have been delayed for an appropriate time. I wish I could post my credentials and research work on the subject of Democracy in America.
I also wish that I could entertain all of your statements, but I cannot. There are too many misspelled words that don't make sense, and you don't exhibit common sense reasoning in your statements. Therefore, I am will repeat a recent post.
Spelman could have stated to Nelly that after we help you with the Bone Marrow Drive to save your sister's life, let's have a discussion once Jackie is in better health on ways that you can aid the black community in terms of making videos that depict black women in a positive light. SIMPLE!
Proper Order: Family & Health First
1. Bone Marrow Drive;
2. A bone marrow match is found;
3. Jackie gets well - survives leukemia;
3. Nelly commits to an open forum discussion with Spelman on misogyny in "Tip Drill";
4. Nelly humbly collaborates with rappers in bringing them to the forefront on ways to show positive images of women in videos.”
Nov 20, 2013 at 12:29:08
“Not that I agree with your implicit attempt to absolve Nelly of all blame in his objectification of women (I don't), but to be clear: Nelly OWNS the record label (Derrty Entertainment) that "decided" to produce the song. If he wants to make get rich by treating poor women like dirt, then he should be prepared for the backlash from educated, confident women. Which is exactly what happened. He deserved to be put in his place. Kudos to the Spelman women. The poor women are taking a job for survival, but it doesn't mean they're not being objectified. So Nelly DOES NOT get a pass on this. Let him be bitter. Serves him right. If he wants women to respect him, he should learn to respect women. If he wants to make money disrespecting women, he shouldn't expect women to respect him. That's how it works.”
ConsciousOfEverythin on Nov 20, 2013 at 13:40:39
“Let's be clear when stating information.
Regardless of whether Nelly is Jackie's brother. She need bone marrow, not Nelly. Did Jackie deserve the maltreatment and backlashing because in the effort to harm Nelly, Spelman's FMLA cause harm to Jackie.
Derrty Entertainment is a division of Motown Records.
Nelly did not need women of Spelman to respect him which most of you are failing to realize. The drive was not about Nelly. He did not need bone marrow.
Asking for help for Jackie should have come with negotiations. Would you want someone examining your career to determine whether to help you save the life of a family member?
How does Nelly treat "poor women like dirt"? You need to educate yourself.
Girls grow up wanting to be in any music video. They are not drafted like prostitutes. It is their choice to be objectified by men. Training girls to choose education starts at home and within the community before they go to Nelly and others requesting to dance in videos.”
Nov 18, 2013 at 19:12:32
“I wish you'd understand Nelly's selfishness. He can sit there and disrespect women all he wants, yet he expects women to respect him in his time of need? Right. Good one. I'm glad that those Spelman girls put him in his place and did the bone marrow drive without him. Spelman College would be an embarrassment to black women if they endorsed Nelly's misogyny by working with him after "Tip Drill".”