"Black Men Are Supposed To Be With Dark Skin Women Period" - Rashida Strober

As the son of a Dark woman I must say that I appreciate chocolate sisters a lot. However, as a man whose ideologies are diametrically opposed to white supremacy, I cannot subscribe to colorism.

Did this woman date Tommy Sotomayor?

A Talented One wrote: »

The Lonious Monk wrote: »

A Talented One wrote: »

The Lonious Monk wrote: »

Why can't it be "Black men are supposed to be with Black women?" How can you argue against colorism in the community by promoting colorism in the community? lol @ her being all about dark skinned women, but calling other people selfish for asking bout their skin tone.

That's like saying, "How can you be against discrimination when you favor reverse discrimination (i.e. affirmative action) against whites?" And just like the answer to this question is that not all discrimination is the same, so not all of what you call 'colorism' is the same. In fact, uplifting our dark-skinned sisters is not colorism at all.

Stopped reading at the affirmative action being reverse discrimination. You stay saying something stupid man.

Listen bruh, this is an idiotic comment. Let me explain why.

First off, what I said doesn't strictly imply that AA is reverse discrimination.

Second, even if I did imply that it is reverse discrimination, given what I go on to say about 'colorism' in favor of dark-skinned BW, it should be clear that I am saying that reverse discrimination is different from what you might call 'ordinary' discrimination. (In particular, the moral status of the former is different from the moral status of the latter.) So maybe you should have kept reading instead of posting this stupid comment. (In fact, I doubt that you truly stopped reading, which makes this comment all the worse.)

Also, let me add that I have no problem calling AA reverse discrimination. Calling it that doesn't settle any of the important moral questions, as some scholars have noted. If you want specific scholarly references I can provide them.

Now who posted the stupid comment?

AA is not reverse discrimination. A company implementing AA policies does not preclude it from hiring whites. It's sad that you really believe the ? you type.

I knew from the thread title that she was gonna be ugly... I just knew it.

The Lonious Monk wrote: »

A Talented One wrote: »

The Lonious Monk wrote: »

A Talented One wrote: »

The Lonious Monk wrote: »

Why can't it be "Black men are supposed to be with Black women?" How can you argue against colorism in the community by promoting colorism in the community? lol @ her being all about dark skinned women, but calling other people selfish for asking bout their skin tone.

That's like saying, "How can you be against discrimination when you favor reverse discrimination (i.e. affirmative action) against whites?" And just like the answer to this question is that not all discrimination is the same, so not all of what you call 'colorism' is the same. In fact, uplifting our dark-skinned sisters is not colorism at all.

Stopped reading at the affirmative action being reverse discrimination. You stay saying something stupid man.

Listen bruh, this is an idiotic comment. Let me explain why.

First off, what I said doesn't strictly imply that AA is reverse discrimination.

Second, even if I did imply that it is reverse discrimination, given what I go on to say about 'colorism' in favor of dark-skinned BW, it should be clear that I am saying that reverse discrimination is different from what you might call 'ordinary' discrimination. (In particular, the moral status of the former is different from the moral status of the latter.) So maybe you should have kept reading instead of posting this stupid comment. (In fact, I doubt that you truly stopped reading, which makes this comment all the worse.)

Also, let me add that I have no problem calling AA reverse discrimination. Calling it that doesn't settle any of the important moral questions, as some scholars have noted. If you want specific scholarly references I can provide them.

Now who posted the stupid comment?

AA is not reverse discrimination. A company implementing AA policies does not preclude it from hiring whites. It's sad that you really believe the ? you type.

Bruh, you should quit replying to me, cause this comment is even more idiotic than the last.

Let me explain why. That a company implementing AA policies does not preclude it from hiring whites clearly does not mean that it is doesn't practice reverse discrimination against whites. Think of what I before called ordinary discrimination. Surely, if a company hired some blacks, and it could prove that, this could not serve to establish that it doesn't discriminate against blacks. (And a great many businesses that have black employees do practice discrimination against blacks.) Similarly, if a company hired some whites, and it could prove that, this could not serve to establish that it doesn't discriminate against whites -- i.e. that it doesn't practice reverse discrimination. Neither AA nor reverse discrimination (if you want to insist on distinguishing between the two) precludes the hiring of whites, so precluding the hiring of whites can't serve to distinguish between the two.

So this comment is idiotic. Q.E.D.

Anyway, I already suggested that I have no problem with reverse discrimination (aka AA) against whites.

A Talented One wrote: »

Bruh, you should quit replying to me, cause this comment is even more idiotic than the last.

Let me explain why. That a company implementing AA policies does not preclude it from hiring whites clearly does not mean that it is doesn't practice reverse discrimination against whites. Think of what I before called ordinary discrimination. Surely, if a company hired some blacks, and it could prove that, this could not serve to establish that it doesn't discriminate against blacks. (And a great many businesses that have black employees do practice discrimination against blacks.) Similarly, if a company hired some whites, and it could prove that, this could not serve to establish that it doesn't discriminate against whites -- i.e. that it doesn't practice reverse discrimination. Neither AA nor reverse discrimination (if you want to insist on distinguishing between the two) precludes the hiring of whites, so precluding the hiring of whites can't serve to distinguish between the two.

So this comment is idiotic. Q.E.D.

Anyway, I already suggested that I have no problem with reverse discrimination (aka AA) against whites.

Ok, fool. One, a company hiring blacks as part of AA policies could only be considered discrimination against whites if every white out there was demonstrably better than every black out there and therefore the the superior whites were being given the shaft. That is never the case, so arguing that is stupid. AA forcing companies to give deserving blacks jobs does not discriminate against whites under any definition of that word. It's irrelevant if the company hires a black person to adhere to some kind of AA policy if that black person is qualified.

Two, that's not even how AA works. There is no quota that companies have to meet. At most it's a gentle nudge to get companies to give more consideration to minorities. Again, a company hiring a qualified minority to increase diversity is not discrimination against whites unless you believe that whites have some intrinsic right to get hiring preference at all times.

Three, blacks aren't even the biggest beneficiaries of AA, white women are. So AA couldn't possibly be a form of reverse discrimination against whites.

So in conclusion, shut the ? up with your moronic ? babble.

The Lonious Monk wrote: »

A Talented One wrote: »

Bruh, you should quit replying to me, cause this comment is even more idiotic than the last.

Let me explain why. That a company implementing AA policies does not preclude it from hiring whites clearly does not mean that it is doesn't practice reverse discrimination against whites. Think of what I before called ordinary discrimination. Surely, if a company hired some blacks, and it could prove that, this could not serve to establish that it doesn't discriminate against blacks. (And a great many businesses that have black employees do practice discrimination against blacks.) Similarly, if a company hired some whites, and it could prove that, this could not serve to establish that it doesn't discriminate against whites -- i.e. that it doesn't practice reverse discrimination. Neither AA nor reverse discrimination (if you want to insist on distinguishing between the two) precludes the hiring of whites, so precluding the hiring of whites can't serve to distinguish between the two.

So this comment is idiotic. Q.E.D.

Anyway, I already suggested that I have no problem with reverse discrimination (aka AA) against whites.

Ok, fool. One, a company hiring blacks as part of AA policies could only be considered discrimination against whites if every white out there was demonstrably better than every black out there and therefore the the superior whites were being given the shaft. That is never the case, so arguing that is stupid. AA forcing companies to give deserving blacks jobs does not discriminate against whites under any definition of that word. It's irrelevant if the company hires a black person to adhere to some kind of AA policy if that black person is qualified.

Two, that's not even how AA works. There is no quota that companies have to meet. At most it's a gentle nudge to get companies to give more consideration to minorities. Again, a company hiring a qualified minority to increase diversity is not discrimination against whites unless you believe that whites have some intrinsic right to get hiring preference at all times.

Three, blacks aren't even the biggest beneficiaries of AA, white women are. So AA couldn't possibly be a form of reverse discrimination against whites.

So in conclusion, shut the ? up with your moronic ? babble.

This comment is again idiotic. But I don't feel like wasting any more time with you.

Dark skinned black women and asian men are the least desirable on the sexual totem pole.

This lady is saying black man Should date black women. All of y'all say "i can date who I want."
You taking a macro problem and making it micro. But her point still stands.

Dudes aren't checking for dark skinned black women and any way you slice it, it's a function of our brainwashing by a society that elevates white beauty (and minorities who have that typical white beauty) which is why we love Halle berry and other black stars they have white features.

If there are twenty million blacks over age of 18 in this country, split evenly with ten mil women and ten mil men... If only one million of the women have men, but ten mil of the men have chicks. That is a systematic problem.


That is all she addressing. You can date whoever you want on an individual level. But if all our individual dating leaves out dark skinned black girls, then there is a deeper issue there.

This is all she getting at

No

Laughing at the naivete of thinking she just wants black men to be with black women. It is much deeper than that. It's about hatred of light skinned women. And it doesn't stop there. There are actually sub-categories of brown. Then there is a whole other argument about hair grades. Y'all dudes don't know the half of it.

SheerExcellence wrote: »

Dark skinned black women and asian men are the least desirable on the sexual totem pole.

This lady is saying black man Should date black women. All of y'all say "i can date who I want."
You taking a macro problem and making it micro. But her point still stands.

Dudes aren't checking for dark skinned black women and any way you slice it, it's a function of our brainwashing by a society that elevates white beauty (and minorities who have that typical white beauty) which is why we love Halle berry and other black stars they have white features.

If there are twenty million blacks over age of 18 in this country, split evenly with ten mil women and ten mil men... If only one million of the women have men, but ten mil of the men have chicks. That is a systematic problem.


That is all she addressing. You can date whoever you want on an individual level. But if all our individual dating leaves out dark skinned black girls, then there is a deeper issue there.

This is all she getting at

Was with you until the bolded. I don't think she is just trying to say that there is a deeper issue. She has to also be saying, at a minimum, that brothers should be dating and marrying dark-skinned women too. This means that we can't just date and marry who we want, if the women we want to date and marry are disproportionately non-darkskinned women.