Tariq Nasheed vs. Tucker Carlson 11/29

[respiration]

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?

I agree with all you said.
As this thread progresses, I think it needs to be said that whether one believes Tariq won or lost on Tucker Carlson's show depends on how one defines "winning". For those that wanted him to speak words resisting white supremacy, to mention that term and to oppose the framing that was being put on him, they see him as having won. I feel like his being on there at all was a loss - as well as his being nervous, stuttering and unfocused for most of the session. None of us need to be name-calling each other though (not that you are doing that). We all want to see Black people be free.

I agree with you that Tariq is limited in his debating ability.

 

[BKF]

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 it, 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 saying that you think it's wrong to call a particular women a Negro Bed Wench - with no name-calling and on the other side the dude using that opposition as an opportunity to go on a sustained campaign of name-calling and ridicule. That's childish, divisive, bridge-burning shit. Disagreement with 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?

It's like the no snitching code. Mutherfucker rob you, your mother, your father, your kids, your brother, sister, etc.....and you are suppose to remain silent. How idiotic is that...and who benefits from that situation?
It seems some people have problems thinking for themselves and will follow anything (even to their detriment).

 

[respiration]

It's like the no snitching code. Mutherfucker rob you, your mother, your father, your kids, your brother, sister, etc.....and you are suppose to remain silent. How idiotic is that...and who benefits from that situation?
It seems some people have problems thinking for themselves and will follow anything (even to their detriment).

I agree with you and that's a good analogy.

That's why I'm glad we have BGOL where we can discuss various viewpoints - hear others' views. I think it's a great opportunity to learn and grow if we approach it that way. I definitely learn from these discussions.

 

[Peace37]

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?

Again, you type all this irrelevant shit, but you're not obsessed. lol OK. Like that other dude said, Tariq must have macked on your mom's back in the day. You're straight up lying about the situation.

 

[DaAssWatcher]

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?

That's the PROBLEM we think everyone needs to be heard.The message can be about Black economics and some random jackass gonna stand up and start talking about slut shaming ,gender norms or how some other non Black group is being treated unfairly and next thing you know no one is focusing on the real issue anymore.

Black people as a group do not understand how acquiring power works.Look at anyone who has ever had to fight their way into power and you'll see that any dissenting voices or would be trouble makers were identified and purged immediately.We allow a number of people with clear ulterior motives to be amongst us and wonder why we can't get shit done.No excuse at all that his platform shouldn't have been used to 100% defend Nate Parker.

Well we know now why he was dancing a jig and was soft on Hillary Clinton.He was busy slipping her side debate questions looking out for himself instead just like all Black democrats and political pundits do which is why we as a community are in the state we are in now.

Wheres NewsOnes coverage of the ongoing purge of Black people from Amercian cities thats been going on the last 15 years?The lead exposures of poor Black communities thats been linked to learning difficulties and violent behavior that can explain a lot of the dysfunction we see in the hood especially in his hometown Chicago where this study was done?Why isn't the CBC being brought up to task for their failure to represent Black people instead of corporate interests?How about the many Black mayors in Black cities who get in office and end up doing nothing for the people?
People voted into leadership positions need to be held accountable and put on blast when they are fucking up but it's obvious we can't trust Roland on that since he seems to be playing the game as well.

NewsOne is not the place I go to get informed about anything.

 

[II Dxnum]

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?

What I didn't care about was looking up that old post you made and posting the link. That's what I was referring to when I said I didn't care that much you moron. As far as what context sowell was mentioned in, I don't know.

I doubt he would fuck with Griff on the street level.

He urged griff to send what ever cats he had, his way at the peak of that "beef". I doubt he was too concerned with dealing with griff on a street level.

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?

I'm not connected to tariq in any way. You're probably more versed in all things tariq than I am. lol

 

[gw1933]

After watching the video again, I have somewhat a different take on it.

Tariq was following the template of Neely Fuller the more I watched it. He kept bringing the convo back to the 2 words "White Supremacy". At the end of the day, all roads lead back to that (RWS). Despite a persons social, economic, and political stance, it all goes back to RWS somehow (directly or indirectly).

To think there is no benefit for Whites to allow a Black kid to come to the states (and get on his feet) is asinine. Although many of us may not know the motive behind it, Im sure it somehow has more benefit to the Whites that initialized that move.

Anyone that is familiar with Fuller knows he is big on not letting conversations get diverted by way of deflections or changes of subject. Its imperative to always bring it back to RWS....Although not as tactful as he usually is, Tariq was on code as much as he could have been.



On a side note: Griff should be ashamed of himself. Theres nothing cool about a 50 year old man making threats of violence on another man.

 

[Joe Money]

What I didn't care about was looking up that old post you made and posting the link. That's what I was referring to when I said I didn't care that much you moron. As far as what context sowell was mentioned in, I don't know.

For you to even remember a random post from eight months ago suggests you did care, or you have a photographic memory, which I doubt.

I'm not connected to tariq in any way. You're probably more versed in all things tariq than I am. lol

Says the man who suspiciously comments on anything I have to say in a Tariq thread. And you throw down hard too! Like you're one of his bottom bitches! Are you??

 

[II Dxnum]

For you to even remember a random post from eight months ago sugg, and probablyests you did care, or you have a photographic memory, which I doubt.

Or it just means I have a fairly decent memory. I'm sure there's plenty of shit I don't care about that I remember, and your goofy ass probably does too.

Says the man who suspiciously comments on anything I have to say in a Tariq thread. And you throw down hard too! Like you're one of his bottom bitches! Are you??

Now I comment on everything you say in a tariq thread huh? lol The fact that you and others are always in them is suspicious.
And a "bottom bitch" is the one with .pdfs on their hard drive.

 

[cashwhisperer]

 

[Joe Money]

Or it just means I have a fairly decent memory. I'm sure there's plenty of shit I don't care about that I remember, and your goofy ass probably does too.

Enough to remember a random comment I made back in April about a scholar you've never heard of and know nothing about??? Okay, if you say so you fake-ass hotep-ass nigga.

Now I comment on everything you say in a tariq thread huh? lol The fact that you and others are always in them is suspicious.
And a "bottom bitch" is the one with .pdfs on their hard drive.

Yeah, you do comment or mention my name whenever I comment in a Tariq thread. Why is that? I'll answer that for you. It's because Tariq is your pimp and you're his ho. You monitor the board for anything said about him or in case any of his shit is uploaded so you can go snitch. I see right through your punk ass.

 

[II Dxnum]

Enough to remember a random comment I made back in April about a scholar you've never heard of and know nothing about??? Okay, if you say so you fake-ass hotep-ass nigga.

Happening to remember something from 8 months ago has nothing to do with caring to post a link. But I've said that numerous times and you still don't get it. You're dumber than I thought. lol

I also remember a post you made crying about your absent father. Now go find that post and then accuse me of caring.

Yeah, you do comment or mention my name whenever I comment in a Tariq thread. Why is that? I'll answer that for you. It's because Tariq is your pimp and you're his ho. You monitor the board for anything said about him or in case any of his shit is uploaded so you can go snitch. I see right through your punk ass.

I usually address you tariq fans/detractors as a whole. I don't tend to focus on just one of you. I'm sure you'll go digging through my post history though. Find that open letter to your dad while you're at it.

 

[respiration]

@Sankofa @VAiz4hustlaz

No disrespect to either of you. Costs nothing to keep the convo civil and on topic. We're still Black.

2 cents.

 

[Joe Money]

Happening to remember something from 8 months ago has nothing to do with caring to post a link. But I've said that numerous times and you still don't get it. You're dumber than I thought. lol

I also remember a post you made crying about your absent father. Now go find that post and then accuse me of caring.

Ummm...no. I really would encourage you to find that post. I did start a thread asking if there were any "deadbeats" on the board, and maybe that hit home for YOU! http://www.bgol.us/forum/index.php?threads/are-any-of-you-deadbeat-fathers.660617/

I usually address you tariq fans/detractors as a whole. I don't tend to focus on just one of you. I'm sure you'll go digging through my post history though. Find that open letter to your dad while you're at it.

So you address anyone who criticizes Tariq Nasheed? Why is that? Is he really your pimp?

And your post history isn't worth digging through because you don't have jack shit of value to say. However, I do recall that you have a 26-page thread dedicated to your ass that you conveniently ignore: http://www.bgol.us/forum/index.php?...tch-i-told-you-i-had-them-pics.841825/page-26

Who NOSE why you avoid that thread???

@Sankofa @VAiz4hustlaz

No disrespect to either of you. Costs nothing to keep the convo civil and on topic. We're still Black.

2 cents.

I agree. But it's difficult to do that with a professional troll. I think everything has been said about the Tariq video anyway, but for the sake of the thread I will put him on ignore .... after I bump his ock thread!

 

[II Dxnum]

Ummm...no. I really would encourage you to find that post. I did start a thread asking if there were any "deadbeats" on the board, and maybe that hit home for YOU! http://www.bgol.us/forum/index.php?threads/are-any-of-you-deadbeat-fathers.660617/

Ummm...yes. And that thread ain't it. I'm sure you'll find it, you probably already have.

So you address anyone who criticizes Tariq Nasheed?

I address the ones who be up in tariq threads, every single time, typing paragraphs. Like yourself. Picture me dedicating so many words, time after time, concerning someone I deemed not credible.

However, I do recall that you have a 26-page thread dedicated to your ass that you conveniently ignore: http://www.bgol.us/forum/index.php?...tch-i-told-you-i-had-them-pics.841825/page-26

I'll take that as the official tap out. Yall always go that route concerning pics that have never been confirmed to me and never will. That daddy shit got under your skin. lol

@Sankofa @VAiz4hustlaz

No disrespect to either of you. Costs nothing to keep the convo civil and on topic. We're still Black.

2 cents.

Whatever tariq/carlson "discussion" yall was having was over.

No disrespect...we still black.

 

[respiration]

That's the PROBLEM we think everyone needs to be heard.The message can be about Black economics and some random jackass gonna stand up and start talking about slut shaming ,gender norms or how some other non Black group is being treated unfairly and next thing you know no one is focusing on the real issue anymore.

Black people as a group do not understand how acquiring power works.Look at anyone who has ever had to fight their way into power and you'll see that any dissenting voices or would be trouble makers were identified and purged immediately.We allow a number of people with clear ulterior motives to be amongst us and wonder why we can't get shit done.No excuse at all that his platform shouldn't have been used to 100% defend Nate Parker.

Well we know now why he was dancing a jig and was soft on Hillary Clinton.He was busy slipping her side debate questions looking out for himself instead just like all Black democrats and political pundits do which is why we as a community are in the state we are in now.

Wheres NewsOnes coverage of the ongoing purge of Black people from Amercian cities thats been going on the last 15 years?The lead exposures of poor Black communities thats been linked to learning difficulties and violent behavior that can explain a lot of the dysfunction we see in the hood especially in his hometown Chicago where this study was done?Why isn't the CBC being brought up to task for their failure to represent Black people instead of corporate interests?How about the many Black mayors in Black cities who get in office and end up doing nothing for the people?
People voted into leadership positions need to be held accountable and put on blast when they are fucking up but it's obvious we can't trust Roland on that since he seems to be playing the game as well.

NewsOne is not the place I go to get informed about anything.

Family, you are deflecting.

You mentioned that show that Roland did about Nate Parker and said that he brought on Nate's detractors as if that made him a coon. Then you said he should have done the show defending Nate. Then I pointed out that he had guests on who did just that and that at the end, all including his detractors agreed that people should go see the film. Where have you seen such a consensus on a white station?

Instead of acknowledging that, you deflected off onto TV-One being a bust because it doesn't cover the isssues you listed, and therefore TV-One doesn't really reflect the interests of the Black community. Well, how many shows has Tariq had on about lead exposure and the non-representation of the CBC?

You already know that Tariq's overreaction at Roland defending a Sista from being called a "negro bed wench" was way overblown. Let's stay on topic. Bottom line. When we criticize one for not being "on code", but excuse the "off code" behavior of the pundit we favor, that is a double standard.

We should be able to publicly disagree with each other on issues without turning to personal insults. That burns bridges and cuts off opportunities for coalition. It breeds dissension and disunity and plays into the hands of our oppressors - whose wish has always been to see us disunified and fighting. Back in the 60s the FBI under COINTELPRO lowkey sent poison pen letters between Black power groups to instigate them to hate each other. In 2016 going into 2017, brothers are doing the same thing without the help of white supremacists. Volunteer slavery.

My point is this. We should be broad minded and mature enough to realize that no one is going to be everything we want them to be. But just like any healthy relationship, we need to be able see where - in spite of our differences, we can bring our individual strengths to the table and unify on common causes. Tariq, Boyce, Roland, Umar all have something useful to offer.

I would have loved to have been able to see Roland have Tariq on his show maybe even with Van Jones on deck to discuss the issues of the day - or vice versa. I would have loved to have seen them coalesce around a common cause. Their collective potential strength of their individual gifts is astounding.

But when instead of responding to disagreement in a thoughtful way, one goes onto a campaign of ridicule and insults - all chances of unifying are all but killed. All over some stupid ego shit. Our prominent Black folks, the ones who are doing it, need to stop that shit. Yesterday.

Once upon a time, two others disagreed in what approach to take towards our liberation. They disagreed with methods and even with whom the other appeared to represent, but never was it personal.

Malcolm X on Dr. King:

"He got the peace prize, we got the problem.... If I'm following a general, and he's leading me into a battle, and the enemy tends to give him rewards, or awards, I get suspicious of him. Especially if he gets a peace award before the war is over."

"I'll say nothing against him. At one time the whites in the United States called him a racialist, and extremist, and a Communist. Then the Black Muslims came along and the whites thanked the Lord for Martin Luther King."

"Dr. King wants the same thing I want -- freedom!"

"The goal has always been the same, with the approaches to it as different as mine and Dr. Martin Luther King's non-violent marching, that dramatizes the brutality and the evil of the white man against defenseless blacks. And in the racial climate of this country today, it is anybody's guess which of the "extremes" in approach to the black man's problems might personally meet a fatal catastrophe first -- "non-violent" Dr. King, or so-called "violent" me."

Dr. King on Malcolm X

"I met Malcolm X once in Washington, but circumstances didn't enable me to talk with him for more than a minute. He is very articulate ... but I totally disagree with many of his political and philosophical views — at least insofar as I understand where he now stands. I don't want to seem to sound self-righteous, or absolutist, or that I think I have the only truth, the only way. Maybe he does have some of the answer. I don't know how he feels now, but I know that I have often wished that he would talk less of violence, because violence is not going to solve our problem. And in his litany of articulating the despair of the Negro without offering any positive, creative alternative, I feel that Malcolm has done himself and our people a great disservice. Fiery, demagogic oratory in the black ghettos, urging Negroes to arm themselves and prepare to engage in violence, as he has done, can reap nothing but grief."

"You know, right before he was killed he came down to Selma and said some pretty passionate things against me, and that surprised me because after all it was my territory there. But afterwards he took my wife aside, and said he thought he could help me more by attacking me than praising me. He thought it would make it easier for me in the long run."