Tariq Nasheed vs. Tucker Carlson 11/29
- Thread starter FLoss
- Start date
He came out looking very bad in that Pearl Jr debate. And just like he did then with her - with this Tucker Carlson debate, he tried to spin it to portray himself as the winner when he was not.
I've seen Tariq destroy people on his show - but they tended to be soft targets (Jesse Lee Peterson, random Cacs, a random Black woman who claimed to be a Black Feminist). He has been critical of Black feminism and also of BLM whom he misrepresented numerous times with unsubstantiated claims, but never had anyone like Alicia Garza (a founder of BLM) on to debate him, nor any leading Black feminists - just to give two examples. When it comes to debates on Tariq's show, he favors the easy road to victory. Kinda like the opponents of post-incarceration Mike Tyson - up until he fought Holyfield.
If I were Tariq. I would do the reading. Educate myself. Get all the facts and figures and learn to spit those names/date/places/sources whenever I open my mouth to reference anything. Then, I would keep an eye open for speaking platforms and interviews where I would be respected coming in the door and ultimately be given a fair listen and a fair exchange of dialogue. As a Black man, going on Fox News is like selling one's ass.
VGQ.
Constructive criticism is cool, but I've seen a lot of character assassination and stockholm syndrome from the naysayers... which is what's been happening since slavery and it's 2016, but beyond that..the code was designed to be a tool, a mechanism to address the problem of white supremacy. The black man's problem is that we have no code.
We have street code, rules that we have (usually associated with us killing each other), but when it comes to a uniform code of conduct in response to our oppressor, we'd rather argue about style, methods and suspicious ulterior motives . Meanwhile, white code has been in effect for 500 years without skipping a beat.
When you go on cac show, you're going on their turf where they control the flow, narrative, and ask the questions. They normally are non-diplomatic and pre-plan steering the conversation with bait to ultimately discredit you. By using the code, Tariq didn't "lose" the confrontation. He turned took over the flow of the conversation, by focusing on the foundation of the whole argument, the system of white supremacy. You can call out the system of white supremacy when it's done in a logical way that leaves cac's disarmed.
I don't see character assassination at all. I see people speaking honestly about how they felt about the debate and then how they feel about Tariq's offerings as a whole. As those go on the other side of the aisle, I find their deification of him troubling. He's human - not a superhero and not God himself in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. Tariq is a very public figure who purports to speak on our behalf - and so we speak on him.
I find it interesting how the same people who are ultra-sensitive about us analyzing Tariq and who accuse us of character assassination, hating and insulting - are strangely quiet when it comes to the subject of Tariq's relentless putdowns of Roland Martin. This is a man who one time complained about Tariq having called a Sister a Negro Bed Wench. Was Tariq following Fuller's code when he did that?
Though we disagree, I appreciate your viewpoint about Tariq and Carlson. It was well thought out and expressed.
IMO, As Fox goes, Tariq lost when he went into that hostile cesspool at all. He didn't do anything pre-planned. He reacted nervously. He exposed nothing. Exposure is revealing something hidden. Whites' racism isn't hidden - particularly Fox and it's hosts'. He used terminology that WE understood but Fox's audience did not, and he didn't expound upon the terminology and break it down. He allowed himself to be used as a battering ram against Black Lives Matter and Black dissent in general. There was no win.
Last edited:
I haven't been quiet about Tariq's name-calling. I've addressed that before on this board. And I have seen much name-calling of Tariq being a hustler and not giving a fuck about black people in this thread, I think you missed that. I don't think Tariq is Jesus. I'm saying that the CODE won. We need more of that.
We need to be UNITED in practicing for the INDEPENDENT person, a COMPENSATORY, meaning to make up for what's missing, CODE of conduct, therefore creating a new SYSTEM of non-white supremacy, ie a system of justice that works for everybody. So please, get with the CONCEPT.
And that's why I can't take Tariq seriously when resorts to pettiness like that. We as black people shouldn't publicly mock each other because we disagree.
Yes, call out public black figures who sell us out but could you imagine Malcolm X or MLK insulting each other in such way because they disagree?
Why Oh why you people insist on comparing Tariq Nasheed to Malcom X or MLK or any other black leader when he keeps saying he is not your leader. Yet, calling him a hustler on the other side of the mouth, I find it confusing, ya'll looking for a leader?? Look elsewhere or become one. Some of you sound like he was macking your moms or sister back in the days.
Anybody can do what Tariq does, he started doing podcasts on relationships and slowly diversified his content towards more historical black contents, seriously all the so-called intellectuals piling up on him look silly cause the guy never claimed to be whatever you want him to be. Start your own show, put your better knowledge out there, why don't you?
Anybody can do what Tariq does, he started doing podcasts on relationships and slowly diversified his content towards more historical black contents, seriously all the so-called intellectuals piling up on him look silly cause the guy never claimed to be whatever you want him to be. Start your own show, put your better knowledge out there, why don't you?
TN is literally out here walking the walk and talking the talk!
That " pimpin n macking" dude is shining and putting it on the line for our ungrateful masses
Bingo.
TN is literally out here walking the walk and talking the talk!
That " pimpin n macking" dude is shining and putting it on the line for our ungrateful masses
It's 100% bitch-made jealousy. Nothing more. Nothing less. They expect a common dude with no college degree to be a perfect scholar.
the fallacy of the perfect Black man.
we get killed by the police "but that nigga went had detention in 9th grade fuck him"
we make a Black movie "fuck that negro, he dated a white girl in college"
we on a debate show "man he stuttered once, he aint representing right with his inarticulate ass fuck him"
disgusting bro
Actually us people of African descent we have that Jesus/Savior problem, we are always looking for the person who will save us, look when Obama was elected, people really thought he was going to wave his hands and America would become our promise land. When no magic came out of Obama, people started turning on him.
We need to do for self, there is no savior, no second or even a first coming.
Except he didn't. At all.
Nope. He did call himself a Moor. And what exactly is wrong with going around the world giving lectures? You're just itching for excuses to hate on a positive black man because he's out there speaking and making money with damn near no education and you can't do shit with your life. It burns your soul. Nothing wrong with criticizing others, but you dudes are obsessed. He got what he wanted with the Fox News interview and even made Tucker shut the fuck up and look like a moron in his own show. They cut him off at the end. Tariq was smiling. Tucker was pissed.
The look on Tucker's face when Tariq said Fox News play the race casino was priceless
I hate how they associated him with Black Lives Matter
He has nothing to do with BLM
Tariq is a hustler
Tucker made him look like an idiot for most of the segment, he should have known better than to appear on Fixed News. He battled back in the last two minutes and then was cut off.
They used him to further associate BLM like the KKK and he doesn't care because it's a look and increases his popularity and gives him some sort of validation
He has nothing to do with BLM
Tariq is a hustler
Tucker made him look like an idiot for most of the segment, he should have known better than to appear on Fixed News. He battled back in the last two minutes and then was cut off.
They used him to further associate BLM like the KKK and he doesn't care because it's a look and increases his popularity and gives him some sort of validation
pretty much.
black folks issues globally are easily summed up in two or three sentences.
when you try to talk to a large percent of black men about tangable shyt...they rather talk about pussy/sports.
when you do with same with black females...they rather get magical and talk about white jesus.
So a college degree is needed to read books and memorize facts?
So then, it's all good for Tariq to repeatedly tear down and ridicule another Brother who frequently speaks on our behalf. But if we (who have no Youtube channel or social media with tens of thousands of viewers like Tariq) critique Tariq, WE are the ones who are haters, but he's not.
Got it. Tariq died for our sins.
Really now. Prove that statement. Tell us what we do in our lives offline.
...Says the one running up in here at every turn to cape for his savior.
THIS is why Fox really wanted him on the show. They were setting up to have Tucker destroy Tariq to win more support from the alt-right market.
Tariq did this interview full well knowing that he was walking into a lion's den with millions of viewers rooting for him to fail, but he was ready for war. He stumbled a bit, but held his own, deflected their cheap shots and won.
It's easy to judge from the couch. it's much harder to have a blinding spotlight in your face surrounded by people who hate you with an opponent who comes out swinging. All this while dealing with the FBI and white supremacist death threats. That takes a LOT of courage.
Depends on the person doing it. Tariq knows the game. Shaun King knows the game. If there's an audience for something, there's money in it. It's that simple. Doesn't mean everyone can do it though. No matter which side it is, you can actually look at tweets and pretty much tell who is in it for the money/fame.
That's also why there is so much beefing with these hoteps. Cats are so used to controlling their arenas and brands with their buzzwords and bullying tactics. Since it's mostly about money/fame, any attack -- real or perceived -- is not tolerated. They have brands to protect. There's a lot of jealousy.
The successful ones also know there isn't any such thing as bad press, thus the tweet that landed Tariq a spot on Fox. Trump got to be president using similar Twitter tactics.
8 pages I hope yall fix your fingers to type this much against white supremacy. I doubt it though. Tariq got yall writing term papers in this bitch.
It was some guy he retweeted, the link is somewhere on his timeline.
So now you're not too familiar with his work? lol Well that's a name you threw out in regards to tariq in a past thread.
I hope yall fix your fingers to type this much against white supremacy. I doubt it though. Tariq got yall writing term papers in this bitch.It was some guy he retweeted, the link is somewhere on his timeline.
So now you're not too familiar with his work? lol Well that's a name you threw out in regards to tariq in a past thread.
8 pages
It was some guy he retweeted, the link is somewhere on his timeline.
So now you're not too familiar with his work? lol Well that's a name you threw out in regards to tariq in a past thread.
Why don't you post a LINK or quote to whatever you're referencing?? In this case I will do it for you:
And I stand by that. I don't necessarily agree with their political POV, but there is a big difference between debating Jesse Lee Petersen and debating and learned scholar of any stripe. i-moses has already noted this.
I also stand by by calling you a Tariq-bot and a low-frequency nigga!
I must credit Tariq because he has certainly cultivated a following of stans and nut-huggers.And you know what else? You won't see Tariq create a white bow-tied puppet to "clown" and ridicule Tucker Carlson.
Because I didn't care that much.
And I stand by that. I don't necessarily agree with their political POV, but there is a big difference between debating Jesse Lee Petersen and debating and learned scholar of any stripe. i-moses has already noted this.
I also stand by by calling you a Tariq-bot and a low-frequency nigga!
You stand by it, but admit you're not even that familiar enough with the guy's work lol
EDIT: I just checked his wiki, Influenced: Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, Clarence Thomas. That's your guy though. lmao
Now I understand why you would want tariq to debate him.
I'm the tariq bot but you're the guy that was reading his books back when he was the "mackin" guy.
assclown. foh.
Evidently you do, because you constantly feel the need to respond to anything I say in a Tariq thread. I don't think I've ever had any conversation with you in any other thread on any other topic.
You stand by it, but admit you're not even that familiar enough with the guy's work lol
EDIT: I just checked his wiki, Influenced: Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, Clarence Thomas. That's your guy though. lmao
Now I understand why you would want tariq to debate him.
I'm the tariq bot but you're the guy that was reading his books back when he was the "mackin" guy.
Idiot. If you have any reading comprehension skills whatsoever, then you would understand that, in the thread from eight months ago that YOU have decided to reference, I was comparing a black conservative like Jesse Lee Petersen with a black conservative like Thomas Sowell. Both are coming from the same political POV but one is a far more formidable intellectual opponent than the other.
And no, I am not familiar with all of Sowell's work. Check his pedigree and catalog below. I've only read three of his books, and my primary interest has been his work pertaining to "middle-man minorities" and cultural migrations, but he's written a ton of other shit.
And yes, as I stated above, you are a Tariq-bot. A Tariq stan. A Tariq nut-hugger. A Tariq dick-rider. Pick whatever label. It still applies to you. Perhaps you know him personally. I dunno. And I have no problem when Tariq writes and talks about the "mackin" shit, because I think he's qualified to talk about that kind of shit. Venturing out and "playing them away games" with an organized right-wing media machine like Fox has only served to embarrass him. Even his own followers like Peace37 are copping pleas in this thread.
Will Tariq make a Tucker puppet??? I'm highlighting this question because I know you will try to ignore it.
- Harvard University (B.A., 1958)
- Columbia University (M.A., 1959)
- University of Chicago (Ph.D., 1968)
- 1972. Say's Law: A Historical Analysis. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-04166-0
- 1975. Race and Economics. David McKay Company Inc, ISBN 0-679-30262-X
- 1980. Knowledge and Decisions. Basic Books.
- 1981. Markets and Minorities. Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-04399-2
- 1981. Ethnic America: A History. Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-02074-7
- 1983. The Economics and Politics of Race. William Morrow, ISBN 0-688-01891-2
- 1984. Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality? William Morrow, ISBN 0-688-03113-7
- 1985. Marxism: Philosophy and Economics. Quill, ISBN 0-688-06426-4
- 1986. Education: Assumptions Versus History. Hoover Press, ISBN 0-8179-8112-8
- 1987. Compassion Versus Guilt and Other Essays. William Morrow, ISBN 0-688-07114-7
- 1987. A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles. William Morrow, ISBN 0-688-06912-6
- 1990. Preferential Policies: An International Perspective, ISBN 0-688-08599-7
- 1993. Inside American Education, ISBN 0-7432-5408-2
- 1993. Is Reality Optional? ISBN 978-0817992620
- 1995. Race and Culture: A World View. Description & chapter previews. ISBN 0-465-06796-4
- 1995. The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy. Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-08995-X
- 1996. Migrations and Cultures: A World View, ISBN 0-465-04589-8 OCLC 41748039
- 1998. Conquests and Cultures: An International History, ISBN 0-465-01400-3
- 2002. The Quest For Cosmic Justice, ISBN 0-684-86463-0
- 2002. A Personal Odyssey, ISBN 0-684-86465-7
- 2002. Controversial Essays, ISBN 0-8179-2992-4
- 2002. The Einstein Syndrome: Bright Children Who Talk Late, ISBN 0-465-08141-X
- 2003. Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One, ISBN 0-465-08143-6
- 2004. Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy, revised and expanded ed. Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-08145-2 (1st ed. 2000)
- 2004. Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-10775-3.
- 2005. Black Rednecks and White Liberals: And Other Cultural And Ethnic Issues. San Francisco: Encounter Books. ISBN 978-1-59403-086-4.
- 2006. On Classical Economics. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. 2006. ISBN 978-0-300-12606-8.
- 2006. Ever Wonder Why? And Other Controversial Essays. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press. ISBN 978-0-8179-4752-1.
- 2007. A Man of Letters. San Francisco: Encounter Books. ISBN 978-1-59403-196-0.
- 2007. Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy (3rd ed.). Cambridge, Mass: Perseus Books Group. ISBN 978-0-465-00260-3. OCLC 76897806.
- 2007. Economic Facts and Fallacies. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-00349-5.
- 2008. Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One (2nd ed.). Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-00345-7. OCLC 260206351.
- 2009. The Housing Boom and Bust. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-01880-2.
- 2010. Intellectuals and Society. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-01948-9.
- 2010. Dismantling America. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-02251-9.
- 2010. Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy (4th ed.). Cambridge, Mass: Perseus Books Group. ISBN 978-0-465-02252-6.
- 2011. The Thomas Sowell Reader. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-02250-2.
- 2013. Intellectuals and Race. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-05872-3.
- 2014. Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy (5th ed.). New York: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-06073-3.
- 2015. Wealth, Poverty and Politics: An International Perspective.
Me saying I don't really care that much was in response to you asking why I didn't link to that post, dummy. And I didn't respond to anything you said in this thread. I predicted your appearance and of course was right.
I call out all you dudes who don't find tariq credible but stay in threads with his name writing long ass, analytical posts. Don't think you're special.
I get it now. He appears to be a more "learned coon" than a jesse lee. lol
How much money did you put in tariq's pocket buying those macking books?
Did he make a puppet out of that pearl jr person? Professor griff?
Nigga, you responded with this!!
That response had nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
Oh yes. But a "learned coon" who would embarrass the hell out of Tariq. Just as a weak-ass decidedly non-intellectual racist like Tucker Carlson had Tariq flustered and babbling.
Not a goddamned cent. This is BGOL. I can upload the PDFs if you want them though.
The Pearl Jr debate was years ago, when he was still blaming black women for all of the black community's problem. And he ain't fucking with Griff because Griff has NOI and FOI ties. And he ain't fucking with Tucker or Fox News either.
I made that response after you showed up and responded to something I said.
And I know it has nothing to do with this "discussion" it was interesting to me so I had to say something about it.
What would tariq and this "intellectual coon" debate about? lmao
Im good. You have more interest in those macking books than me. Which is hilarious.
So he didn't make a griff or carlson puppet because he was scared? What are you getting at?
Wait, I thought tariq had some of those noi/foi as part as his security?
So Roland isn't a sellout?
And that's why I can't take Tariq seriously when resorts to pettiness like that. We as black people shouldn't publicly mock each other because we disagree.
Yes, call out public black figures who sell us out but could you imagine Malcolm X or MLK insulting each other in such way because they disagree?
When Nate Parker was getting attacked by white supremacists and their coon and bedwench minions, you are supposed to do a show calling them out.You aren't supposed to bring on the same people attacking him like all the other cac stations.
You supposed to stay on code and expose white supremacist tactics for what they are for, not bring on dissenting voices to pile on Parker.What's the point of TvOne being a "Black" station if they doing what the white stations are doing?
We aren't even gonna bring up his fuck shit with Hillary and Stephen A.Smith and him being scared to say he identified as a Black man when questioned by a white supremacist.
I responded since you mentioned my name. And first you claimed you really didn't care and now you're saying you found the tweet interesting. Make up your mind. In what context was the reference to Thomas Sowell being made?
The same things that he talked to Jesse Lee about.
Nah, I just think he's more qualified to talk about that kind of shit. When he steps outside of that lane, he plays himself, as we saw with the Tucker Carlson interview.
I doubt he would fuck with Griff on the street level. And he SHOULD do a Carlson puppet but he WON'T. He only goes at his black detractors, like Sotomayor and Martin, like that. As far as FOI/NOI in his security, I have no idea. You're connected to Tariq so you tell me. Why would he need security anyway?
No Roland isn't a sellout.
How are you going to say what he is "supposed" to do with his show and who he is supposed to bring on? The white stations were not having a diversity of Black voices moderated by a Black man discussing that issue. All sides were heard in Roland's discussion - including the side that questioned the timing of these allegations being brought back up. The Sistas attacking Nate were even shut down by the Brother who took away their mantle of victimhood by pointing out that many Black men are raped too - but keep silent because of being afraid of labeling.
What was on that show was the same debate that Black folks were having on social media around Nate Parker. That's what shows like Roland's do. They talk about what is topical. Yes, those two Black women he had on were annoying as hell and wouldn't hardly let anyone else get a word in. But what was the end result?
At the end of the show when Roland asked everyone individually, if people should go see Birth of A Nation, each participant said YES and that they themselves would see it.
Let me also say that everyone does not subscribe to Neely Fuller's code. It is a concept that some choose to follow. It is not the only viable methodology for being Black and navigating within a white supremacist system. I personally find it ridiculous not to give any negative critique to the words and actions of certain Black people. Then that means that the only thing said about them should be neutral or positive. That's severely flawed. Dialogue between Black folks from myriad viewpoints is a good thing.
Furthermore, folks can't just invoke the code when it suits them as a hammer against one person they feel violates it, but then when the individual whom they like violates it, turn a blind eye. That is hypocrisy.
There is a fundamental difference between Roland saying - with no name-calling -that he thought Tariq was wrong to call a Black woman a Negro Bed Wench and on the other side Tariq using that opposition as an opportunity to go on a sustained campaign of name-calling and ridicule. That's childish, divisive, bridge-burning shit. Simple disagree reement with comments made in a tweet is not tantamount to disrespect. Roland did not name call Tariq. Tariq could have just as easily ignored the comment, explained why he called her an NBW, disagreed with Roland, asked for a dialogue or any number of other options that would have left it at simply a difference of opinion between two prominent Brothers.
Instead he lied and created a new term on the spot claiming he was calling the woman a Non-American Black Woman.
..And then proceeded to savage Roland over the course of a number of podcasts and label him as a coon and a buffoon... And then his boy, Boyce Watkins jumped into the middle of it too (I was more disappointed by that).And no, I don't think his doing a line dance with Hillary qualifies the dude as a coon. His career and body of work should be considered. No one we've mentioned in your and my exchange (with the possible exception of Stephen A. Smith) deserves that designation.
I can't speak on this thing involving a white supremacist and Roland and Stephen A. - because I didn't see it. Could you drop a link?
Last edited:
Similar threads
