The Tariq Nasheed Thread

[Bondye Vodou]

old but.....

 

[Gravity]

I was kinda curious to hear this but after 5 minutes in, I just had to turn it off when Tariq used the Dred Scott decision still being on the books as proof for his arguments validity.

The guy asked for an example of white supremacy being written into the law. The Dred Scott decision still stands to this day. Im curious as to the argument for systematic white supremacy not existing and just being a myth. This guy didn't make one valid point supporting f hisslaim that white supremacy doesn't exist, can you?

 

[Jim Cornette]

The only thing that seem off about Tariq is the whole obsession w/ "moist nikkas" and shaming dudes that have effeminate characteristics. It's like, why do you care? The overwhelming majority of black men are masculine and heterosexual. But you're so bothered about a very small minority of effeminate or even masculine black gay men that aren't bothering you. Sometimes it makes me question his sexuality....ya know what they say, you are what you hate. And I'm a gay dude that believes straights SHOULD be the overwhelming majority. But when straight nikkas constantly put us down and call names just because you think it's "weird" that two guys can be attracted to each other it's disheartening. I fight for anyone w/ black skin. The straight nikkas, the sistas, lesbians, trans, Gay whatever...we're all subjugated under white supremacy.

I'm not even gay and that shyts annoyin..

you just gotta ignore that shyt when he bangs on about being 'moist'.

I think hes a homophobe.. I can admit I was a homophobe. it took for my little brother coming out at 13 to realize its nothin to be afraid of.

hope someone brings that up on one of his next podcasts.

 

[AJaRuleStan]

The guy asked for an example of white supremacy being written into the law.The Dred Scott decision still stands to this day.

No he didn't. He was looking for a law that still had standing which contained internal logic that permits unequal protection on the basis of race. The Dred Scott decision clearly has no standing -- and hasn't for about 150 years now -- due to the 13th/14th Amendment. Tariq himself admitted as such, however, he asserts that 13/14th amendment aren't actually being legally *applied* or acknowledged by white daddy, as he so eloquently put its. Therefore, in his mind, Dred Scott decision still holds. However, in his mind, doesn't even come close to resembling an argument.

But that's not what bothered me, it's the blatant dishonesty from him that did. Look, If I believed that the 13th/14th wasn't being enforced and never was enforced, I would be doing everything possible to get the fukk out of this country and convince as many other black ppl to leave with me, or, after coming to the painful realization that we've in fact been lied, killed, and oppressed for 4 centuries straight now, grab a gun and go to war against whypip and convince others to follow me. And that's my issue, Tariq does not behave like someone who literally believes the things he is saying. How are you going to sit there and proclaim black ppl are literally being killed with impunity by white supremacy, everyday, and then in the next breath shill your shytty android app to me, fukk off.

 

[Gravity]

I'm not even gay and that shyts annoyin..

you just gotta ignore that shyt when he bangs on about being 'moist'.

I think hes a homophobe.. I can admit I was a homophobe. it took for my little brother coming out at 13 to realize its nothin to be afraid of.

hope someone brings that up on one of his next podcasts.

What if you're not "afraid" and it's just that you don't agree with it or think that it's a lifestyle worthy of respect or above being clowned? It's fine that you don't feel that there's anything wrong with being gay after your brother has chosen to be gay but that doesn't make you morally superior to people who don't share your take. I'd even argue that your take isn't even based on principle, it's based on selfish shyt. Having a gay little brother wouldn't really change your perspective if it was based on principle. It wouldn't matter who. Came out on my family, it wouldn't change my position of homosexuality because it's based on principle.

My issue with dude and the "moist" shyt is that he's much too graphic with his clowning. Some of the references literally put disgusting images in your mind and a lot of times I think it's gratuitous. Waaay over the top. That's him tho, I'm not on that fake self righteous shyt where I'm pretending to be morally superior.

 

[Gravity]

No he didn't. He was looking for a law that still had standing which contained internal logic that permits unequal protection on the basis of race. The Dred Scott decision clearly has no standing -- and hasn't for about 150 years now -- due to the 13th/14th Amendment. Tariq himself admitted as such, however, he asserts that 13/14th amendment aren't actually being legally *applied* or acknowledged by white daddy, as he so eloquently put its. Therefore, in his mind, Dred Scott decision still holds. However, in his mind, doesn't even come close to resembling an argument.

But that's not what bothered me, it's the blatant dishonesty from him that did. Look, If I believed that the 13th/14th wasn't being enforced and never was enforced, I would be doing everything possible to get the fukk out of this country and convince as many other black ppl to leave with me, or, after coming to the painful realization that we've in fact been lied, killed, and oppressed for 4 centuries straight now, grab a gun and go to war against whypip and convince others to follow me. And that's my issue, Tariq does not behave like someone who literally believes the things he is saying. How are you going to sit there and proclaim black ppl are literally being killed with impunity by white supremacy, everyday, and then in the next breath shill your shytty android app to me, fukk off.

The Dred Scott decision does still stand because it was never officially overturned. That's just a fact. They say that the 14th amendment overturned it but the 14th amendment has never been honored or respected. Remember, immediately after reconstruction we got Jim Crow which was legalized overt white supremacy. Jim Crow was apartheid. How do you reconcile the 14th amendment with Jim Crow? You can't. Jim Crow overturned the 14th amendment. The racist corrupt national police organization and justice department that has led to mass incarceration works around the 13th amendment. Gerrymandering and voter id laws have devalued/discredited the 15th amendment.

You're being very dishonest pretending as if those reconstruction amendments have ever been honored or respected. Whites have worked around 13-15th amendments since they created them. They don't really mean anything. You're fighting a battle that you can't be won. White supremacy was literally the written law of the land until 1964 so what's your position? That white supremacy just ended with the civil rights bill? That civil rights bill has been treated just like those reconstruction amendments. It's been ignored and worked around. You're flat out lying.

 

[AJaRuleStan]

The Dred Scott decision does still stand because it was never officially overturned. That's just a fact. They say that the 14th amendment overturned it but the 14th amendment has never been honored or respected. Remember, immediately after reconstruction we got Jim Crow

That's not an accurate re-telling of events. We immediately got black codes after the civil war, which were put in place to prevent freed blacks from pursuing their newly-found freedoms. The 14th/15th amendment was established in response which later eradicated the black codes, though, there was still was some debate regarding how the vagrancy charges were being codified, however, what was recorded in print on that one did apply to all races despite the circumstances of the moment.

Anyway, since these new amendments made the black codes and laws similar to it unsustainable in the long run, a new set of laws known as Jim Crow laws were introduced to enact racial segregation in public facilities rather than trying to outright curtail civil liberties like with the black codes, assuming that the separated public faculties were comparably equal in quality, hence the clause separate but equal. And that's were the problem arises in relation to the 14th amendment.

Theoretically, if both blacks and whites wielded their own power and had public institutions/facilities that were roughly the same, than how exactly are blacks being discriminated/oppressed, or more specifically how is the 14th amendment being violated. Is the concept of racial segregation even bad in principle or effect? In Brown V. Board, it was argued that segregated schools promoted feelings of inferiority in black children, because not being around white kids reduced their motivation to learn. Others like Thomas Sowell have pointed out how during the height of virulent white racism and black poverty, blacks maintained higher educational standards in their own schools, run by black teachers and administrators. The Dunbar school is a prime example.

But I only bring all this up to highlight that it wasn't out right apparent how exactly is the concept of Jim Crow violating the 14th amendment like it was with the black codes which is why it was so elusive to pin down initially using the 14th amendment. It was only once it became abundantly clear that while the races were separate, they were in fact not equal, thus, a violation of the 14th amendment was occurring which is was what eventually lead to the demise of Jim Crow.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

No he didn't. He was looking for a law that still had standing which contained internal logic that permits unequal protection on the basis of race. The Dred Scott decision clearly has no standing -- and hasn't for about 150 years now -- due to the 13th/14th Amendment. Tariq himself admitted as such, however, he asserts that 13/14th amendment aren't actually being legally *applied* or acknowledged by white daddy, as he so eloquently put its. Therefore, in his mind, Dred Scott decision still holds. However, in his mind, doesn't even come close to resembling an argument.

But that's not what bothered me, it's the blatant dishonesty from him that did. Look, If I believed that the 13th/14th wasn't being enforced and never was enforced, I would be doing everything possible to get the fukk out of this country and convince as many other black ppl to leave with me, or, after coming to the painful realization that we've in fact been lied, killed, and oppressed for 4 centuries straight now, grab a gun and go to war against whypip and convince others to follow me. And that's my issue, Tariq does not behave like someone who literally believes the things he is saying. How are you going to sit there and proclaim black ppl are literally being killed with impunity by white supremacy, everyday, and then in the next breath shill your shytty android app to me, fukk off.

I believe there was a recent case that invoked the Deed Scott decision...a few months ago.

 

[Gravity]

That's not an accurate re-telling of events. We immediately got black codes after the civil war, which were put in place to prevent freed blacks from pursuing their newly-found freedoms. The 14th/15th amendment was established in response which later eradicated the black codes, though, there was still was some debate regarding how the vagrancy charges were being codified, however, what was writing in print on that one did apply to all races despite the circumstances of the moment.

Anyway, since these new amendments made the black codes and laws similar to it unsustainable in the long run, a new set of laws known as Jim Crow laws were introduced to enact racial segregation in public facilities rather than trying to outright curtail civil liberties like with the black codes, assuming that the separated public faculties were comparably equal in quality, hence the clause separate but equal. And that's were the problem arises in relation to the 14th amendment.

Theoretically, if both blacks and whites wielded their own power and had public institutions/facilities that were roughly the same, than how exactly are blacks being discriminated/oppressed, or more specifically how is the 14th amendment being violated. Is the concept of racial segregation even bad in principle or effect? In Brown V. Board, it was argued that segregated schools promoted feelings of inferiority in black children, because not being around white kids reduced their motivation to learn. Others like Thomas Sowell have pointed out how during the height of virulent white racism and black poverty, blacks maintained higher educational standards in their own schools, run by black teachers and administrators. The Dunbar school is a prime example.

But I only bring all this up to highlight that it wasn't out right apparent how exactly is the concept of Jim Crow violating the 14th amendment like it was with the black codes which is why it was so elusive to pin down initially using the 14th amendment. It was only once it became abundantly clear that while the races were separate, they were in fact not equal, thus, a violation of the 14th amendment was occurring which is was what eventually lead to the demise of Jim Crow.

You typed all of this but didn't say a gotdamn thing. Jim Crow was just an extension of the black codes and those Jim Crow laws most certainly curtailed the civil liberties of black people. That era was never about "separate it equal" and it was always about "seperate and unequal". The Jim Crow laws were basically usedto officially uphold and honor the Dred Scott decision. Jim Crow wasn't just about segregating whites and blacks, it was also about the sanctioning of anti-black terrorism by both the state and white private citizens. Most of the lynchings occurred during the Jim Crow era.

It was outright immediately apparent that the Jim Crow laws directly violated the 14th amendment and you even suggesting that it didn't exposes the fact that you're white racist sympathizer at the least. The whole reason for segregation was to enforce and maintain overt white supremacy. You can't be serious.

 

[Jim Cornette]

What if you're not "afraid" and it's just that you don't agree with it or think that it's a lifestyle worthy of respect or above being clowned? It's fine that you don't feel that there's anything wrong with being gay after your brother has chosen to be gay but that doesn't make you morally superior to people who don't share your take. I'd even argue that your take isn't even based on principle, it's based on selfish shyt. Having a gay little brother wouldn't really change your perspective if it was based on principle. It wouldn't matter who. Came out on my family, it wouldn't change my position of homosexuality because it's based on principle.

My issue with dude and the "moist" shyt is that he's much too graphic with his clowning. Some of the references literally put disgusting images in your mind and a lot of times I think it's gratuitous. Waaay over the top. That's him tho, I'm not on that fake self righteous shyt where I'm pretending to be morally superior.

I can't continue a conversation with you if you believe being gay is a 'choice'... we are straight, we didn't choose that. we look at tittys and naturally get aroused, we can't wake up and go "hol' up imma decide to look at some dikk today and get off on that". how stupid does that sound.

maybe you haven't been exposed to the minds of people from different walks of life.

you don't have to agree and promote homosexuality, but why do you have to waste energy to constantly clown and exclude em? i could understand if they were a group of people causing havoc to us and the community- but cmon fam theyre generally harmless and usually stick to themselves lmaoo

your last paragraph kinda proves your homophobe.

 

[jdashmaj]

I believe there was a recent case that invoked the Deed Scott decision...a few months ago.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slat...scott_to_explain_why_it_can_ban_abortion.html

 

[Gravity]

I can't continue a conversation with you if you believe being gay is a 'choice'... we are straight, we didn't choose that. we look at tittys and naturally get aroused, we can't wake up and go "hol' up imma decide to look at some dikk today and get off on that". how stupid does that sound.

I'm suspect of anyone who tries to push this "it's not a choice" shyt of being low key gay themselves because that's just an out. Saying that people have no control over their sexuality is just a sneaky way of creating an out where you can do gay shyt without being gay. There's a lot of people out here doing gay shyt without owning up to being gay using your simple stupid ass line of thinking. "Nah I ain't gay, I was just doing that while I was in jail, I ain't even attracted to other men..............nah I ain't gay I just need the money, I ain't even attracted to other men". If you have sexual relations with people of the same sex then you're gay. It's that simple. You never know what's in another person's head and heart. You judge people based on their actions not what they say.

Actions are conscious decisions or choices. Denying that sexuality is a choice at least for some just shows that you're completely dishonest and not worthy of engaging anyway.

 

[big bun]

Y’all daddy Tariq still trying to make up for losing that debate to Tucker Carlson, huh?

 

[Raw Lyrics]

No he didn't. He was looking for a law that still had standing which contained internal logic that permits unequal protection on the basis of race. The Dred Scott decision clearly has no standing -- and hasn't for about 150 years now -- due to the 13th/14th Amendment. Tariq himself admitted as such, however, he asserts that 13/14th amendment aren't actually being legally *applied* or acknowledged by white daddy, as he so eloquently put its. Therefore, in his mind, Dred Scott decision still holds. However, in his mind, doesn't even come close to resembling an argument.

But that's not what bothered me, it's the blatant dishonesty from him that did. Look, If I believed that the 13th/14th wasn't being enforced and never was enforced, I would be doing everything possible to get the fukk out of this country and convince as many other black ppl to leave with me, or, after coming to the painful realization that we've in fact been lied, killed, and oppressed for 4 centuries straight now, grab a gun and go to war against whypip and convince others to follow me. And that's my issue, Tariq does not behave like someone who literally believes the things he is saying. How are you going to sit there and proclaim black ppl are literally being killed with impunity by white supremacy, everyday, and then in the next breath shill your shytty android app to me, fukk off.

Just curious, do you continue to listen to his show?

 

[Raw Lyrics]

Anyway, since these new amendments made the black codes and laws similar to it unsustainable in the long run, a new set of laws known as Jim Crow laws were introduced to enact racial segregation in public facilities rather than trying to outright curtail civil liberties like with the black codes, assuming that the separated public faculties were comparably equal in quality, hence the clause separate but equal. And that's were the problem arises in relation to the 14th amendment.

Theoretically, if both blacks and whites wielded their own power and had public institutions/facilities that were roughly the same, than how exactly are blacks being discriminated/oppressed, or more specifically how is the 14th amendment being violated. Is the concept of racial segregation even bad in principle or effect? In Brown V. Board, it was argued that segregated schools promoted feelings of inferiority in black children, because not being around white kids reduced their motivation to learn. Others like Thomas Sowell have pointed out how during the height of virulent white racism and black poverty, blacks maintained higher educational standards in their own schools, run by black teachers and administrators. The Dunbar school is a prime example.

But I only bring all this up to highlight that it wasn't out right apparent how exactly is the concept of Jim Crow violating the 14th amendment like it was with the black codes which is why it was so elusive to pin down initially using the 14th amendment. It was only once it became abundantly clear that while the races were separate, they were in fact not equal, thus, a violation of the 14th amendment was occurring which is was what eventually lead to the demise of Jim Crow.

You just proved Tariq's point....