Is it not totally ****ing insane that across the entire national conversation around

[Monty92]

youth knife crime, you basically hear absolutely nothing about the role of parents? I mean, of course we all know it can be very hard - sometimes impossible - to control what your kids do once they’re out of the house, but surely the role of the people who have the closest daily contact with these yoots, and often still have legal responsibility over them, should be petty ****ing high up on the agenda? And yet it is nowhere to be heard.

I wonder why this could possibly be? :rubchin:

[IUFG]

youth knife crime, you basically hear absolutely nothing about the role of parents? I mean, of course we all know it can be very hard - sometimes impossible - to control what your kids do once they’re out of the house, but surely the role of the people who have the closest daily contact with these yoots, and often still have legal responsibility over them, should be petty ****ing high up on the agenda? And yet it is nowhere to be heard.

I wonder why this could possibly be? :rubchin:

it is almost as if you've never scene
https://static.vibe.com/files/2016/07/boyz-1-compressed.jpg

[redgunamo]

Or ..

https://cdn.smehost.net/michaeljacksoncom-uslegacyprod/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/180316_RememberTheTime.png

#johnsingletonrip



it is almost as if you've never scene
https://static.vibe.com/files/2016/07/boyz-1-compressed.jpg

[redgunamo]

You've answered your own question there, I think :-\



youth knife crime, you basically hear absolutely nothing about the role of parents? I mean, of course we all know it can be very hard - sometimes impossible - to control what your kids do once they’re out of the house, but surely the role of the people who have the closest daily contact with these yoots, and often still have legal responsibility over them, should be petty ****ing high up on the agenda? And yet it is nowhere to be heard.

I wonder why this could possibly be? :rubchin:

[Viva Prat Vegas]

:nod:
Discipline begins at home

Today's lairy parents have gone to pot

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

youth knife crime, you basically hear absolutely nothing about the role of parents? I mean, of course we all know it can be very hard - sometimes impossible - to control what your kids do once they’re out of the house, but surely the role of the people who have the closest daily contact with these yoots, and often still have legal responsibility over them, should be petty ****ing high up on the agenda? And yet it is nowhere to be heard.

I wonder why this could possibly be? :rubchin:

Except that you do.

In both the Times and Guardian, I've read articles either by, or referencing, black academics talking about the lack of fathers in the black community and how we shouldn't invent bøllocks like the myth of the "black supermum" who can somehow perform the role that it requires two white parents to do.

While I disagree with large parts of Berni and Sir C's politics, they are both open about it and there's a logic between the evidence advanced and the conclusions they draw,even if I don't accept the premises on which they are based.

But this post is just dog whistle racism hidden masquerading as a critique of liberal media bias when, as stated, that bias doesn't actually exist.

So if 2 of the 3 or 4 quality papers are openly discussing this problem, why do you say "it is nowhere to be heard"?

Because it wouldn't allow you to imply that the darkies are culturally inferior to you lot while pretending that you really care simply about the poor kids getting knifed and the role the media's liberal bias plays in this.

If you want to openly discuss the role of parenting in predominantly black knife crime, then go ahead and do it like an adult. It's what they do in the Times and Guardian. People there are examining the cultural role race and ethnicity play in these problems. There's a discussion to have and it is being had, whether you've personally read about it in the Daily Fückwit or not.

But dog whistle racism hiding behind a critique of political correctness does nothing to help address these problems.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

PWM ganp.. can we give the stinking jew-boy a good kicking now?

. . . . . . . .

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

PWM ganp.. can we give the stinking jew-boy a good kicking now?

. . . . . . . .

'Fraid not, Herbs. Cos that would mean siding with Jez and the Momentumites.

And as good lefties, we know that fighting our own tribe is far more important than getting the Tories out. Judean People's Front an' all that.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

I'll side with farkin Beelzebub if it means I get to kick that **** Monty's arse up in the air!

[Sir C]

Except that you do.

In both the Times and Guardian, I've read articles either by, or referencing, black academics talking about the lack of fathers in the black community and how we shouldn't invent bøllocks like the myth of the "black supermum" who can somehow perform the role that it requires two white parents to do.

While I disagree with large parts of Berni and Sir C's politics, they are both open about it and there's a logic between the evidence advanced and the conclusions they draw,even if I don't accept the premises on which they are based.

But this post is just dog whistle racism hidden masquerading as a critique of liberal media bias when, as stated, that bias doesn't actually exist.

So if 2 of the 3 or 4 quality papers are openly discussing this problem, why do you say "it is nowhere to be heard"?

Because it wouldn't allow you to imply that the darkies are culturally inferior to you lot while pretending that you really care simply about the poor kids getting knifed and the role the media's liberal bias plays in this.

If you want to openly discuss the role of parenting in predominantly black knife crime, then go ahead and do it like an adult. It's what they do in the Times and Guardian. People there are examining the cultural role race and ethnicity play in these problems. There's a discussion to have and it is being had, whether you've personally read about it in the Daily Fückwit or not.

But dog whistle racism hiding behind a critique of political correctness does nothing to help address these problems.

Trevor Philips has been all over this for years.

That's not to say that 'the darlies' or in this case one assumes the Afro-Caribbean community in the UK, aren't (isn't?) culturally inferior to hisd lot, at least in the matter of casually impregnating and abandoning young women. I think that's sort of the point.

[Monty92]

Except that you do.

In both the Times and Guardian, I've read articles either by, or referencing, black academics talking about the lack of fathers in the black community and how we shouldn't invent bøllocks like the myth of the "black supermum" who can somehow perform the role that it requires two white parents to do.

While I disagree with large parts of Berni and Sir C's politics, they are both open about it and there's a logic between the evidence advanced and the conclusions they draw,even if I don't accept the premises on which they are based.

But this post is just dog whistle racism hidden masquerading as a critique of liberal media bias when, as stated, that bias doesn't actually exist.

So if 2 of the 3 or 4 quality papers are openly discussing this problem, why do you say "it is nowhere to be heard"?

Because it wouldn't allow you to imply that the darkies are culturally inferior to you lot while pretending that you really care simply about the poor kids getting knifed and the role the media's liberal bias plays in this.

If you want to openly discuss the role of parenting in predominantly black knife crime, then go ahead and do it like an adult. It's what they do in the Times and Guardian. People there are examining the cultural role race and ethnicity play in these problems. There's a discussion to have and it is being had, whether you've personally read about it in the Daily Fückwit or not.

But dog whistle racism hiding behind a critique of political correctness does nothing to help address these problems.

Did you just respond to a post intimating that you can't talk about the underlying causes of knife crime without being called a racist by...calling me a racist? :clap:

[Monty92]

Trevor Philips has been all over this for years.

That's not to say that 'the darlies' or in this case one assumes the Afro-Caribbean community in the UK, aren't (isn't?) culturally inferior to hisd lot, at least in the matter of casually impregnating and abandoning young women. I think that's sort of the point.

GG is claiming that it's untrue to say there's not an honest and open debate being had about the role of parents in youth crime. But you can be absolutely f*cking certain that if we asked him about why parents are failing in this role, he would instantly blame austerity, structural racism, and anything else that distracts from questions about individual agency and choice, or, heaven forbid, cultural traits.

And as soon as you dare to mention such things, he'll call you a dog-whistle racist.

It's a neat and effective trick, I'll give him that.

[redgunamo]

Those are all Irish traits surely?

Anyway, the good news is divorce rates are falling. If only because fewer people are getting married in the first place :-\



Trevor Philips has been all over this for years.

That's not to say that 'the darlies' or in this case one assumes the Afro-Caribbean community in the UK, aren't (isn't?) culturally inferior to hisd lot, at least in the matter of casually impregnating and abandoning young women. I think that's sort of the point.

[Sir C]

GG is claiming that it's untrue to say there's not an honest and open debate being had about the role of parents in youth crime. But you can be absolutely f*cking certain that if we asked him about why parents are failing in this role, he would instantly blame austerity, structural racism, and anything else that distracts from questions about individual agency and choice, or, heaven forbid, cultural traits.

And as soon as you dare to mention such things, he'll call you a dog-whistle racist.

It's a neat and effective trick, I'll give him that.

Oh, I'm not so sure. I'm willing to bet that he would be basically pragmatic and objective about the flaws in certain cultures. I don't even know if it's actually arguable that there is a problem of machismo in, particularly Jamaican, Caribbean culture which has been imported into the UK. I mean, they don't much care for battymen, for example.

Mind you, I'm not sure your lot aren't a little on the homophobic side. What says the talmud of bumders?

[Sir C]

Those are all Irish traits surely?

Anyway, the good news is divorce rates are falling. If only because fewer people are getting married in the first place :-\

The Irish have traditionally managed things much better, r. Once impregnated, the lady is packed off to a convent to live the rest of her life in silent prayer and contemplation, whilst the child is allowed to die and is buried in a water tank in the grounds.

So much more efficient than waiting for it to grow up and get stabbed whilst selling ketamine.

[Burney]

Except that you do.

In both the Times and Guardian, I've read articles either by, or referencing, black academics talking about the lack of fathers in the black community and how we shouldn't invent bøllocks like the myth of the "black supermum" who can somehow perform the role that it requires two white parents to do.

While I disagree with large parts of Berni and Sir C's politics, they are both open about it and there's a logic between the evidence advanced and the conclusions they draw,even if I don't accept the premises on which they are based.

But this post is just dog whistle racism hidden masquerading as a critique of liberal media bias when, as stated, that bias doesn't actually exist.

So if 2 of the 3 or 4 quality papers are openly discussing this problem, why do you say "it is nowhere to be heard"?

Because it wouldn't allow you to imply that the darkies are culturally inferior to you lot while pretending that you really care simply about the poor kids getting knifed and the role the media's liberal bias plays in this.

If you want to openly discuss the role of parenting in predominantly black knife crime, then go ahead and do it like an adult. It's what they do in the Times and Guardian. People there are examining the cultural role race and ethnicity play in these problems. There's a discussion to have and it is being had, whether you've personally read about it in the Daily Fückwit or not.

But dog whistle racism hiding behind a critique of political correctness does nothing to help address these problems.

"You lot"?

Anti-semitism imo :redcard:

For the record, I'm quite happy for scumbags of whatever ethnicity to keep stabbing one another. As long as they stay away from decent people and I don't have to pay to clean up the mess, I see no problem.

[Burney]

Trevor Philips has been all over this for years.

That's not to say that 'the darlies' or in this case one assumes the Afro-Caribbean community in the UK, aren't (isn't?) culturally inferior to hisd lot, at least in the matter of casually impregnating and abandoning young women. I think that's sort of the point.

There's a cook at my Mother In Law's new home called Carlton. Lovely lad, he is. Looks after her and everything.

He has eight children by five different mothers, which puts him approximately in line with basically every West Indian bloke I ever played cricket with.

:hehe: Lord, but those lads and monogamy don't go together.

[Burney]

The Irish have traditionally managed things much better, r. Once impregnated, the lady is packed off to a convent to live the rest of her life in silent prayer and contemplation, whilst the child is allowed to die and is buried in a water tank in the grounds.

So much more efficient than waiting for it to grow up and get stabbed whilst selling ketamine.

:nod: Alternatively, the moment gametes meet, the couple are shackled together into decades of mutual loathing, drinking and domestic abuse.

Proper marriage, in other words.

[Burney]

Oh, I'm not so sure. I'm willing to bet that he would be basically pragmatic and objective about the flaws in certain cultures. I don't even know if it's actually arguable that there is a problem of machismo in, particularly Jamaican, Caribbean culture which has been imported into the UK. I mean, they don't much care for battymen, for example.

Mind you, I'm not sure your lot aren't a little on the homophobic side. What says the talmud of bumders?

Yer man Leviticus wasn't keen. Mind you, he didn't like cotton/polyester mix suits, either.

[redgunamo]

Right. Much easier, and more lucrative, to keep the debate around urban street crime.



:nod: Alternatively, the moment gametes meet, the couple are shackled together into decades of mutual loathing, drinking and domestic abuse.

Proper marriage, in other words.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Trevor Philips has been all over this for years.

That's not to say that 'the darlies' or in this case one assumes the Afro-Caribbean community in the UK, aren't (isn't?) culturally inferior to his lot, at least in the matter of casually impregnating and abandoning young women. I think that's sort of the point.

No. Well, not the point I'm making.

My point is that you'll come out and say this openly.

You won't hide it behind a comment suggesting there's some form of politically correct media conspiracy when, as you say, Trevor Philips, the Times and the Graun have been banging on about this for ages.

And to engage with you in open debate about this subject, you say: the matter of casually impregnating and abandoning young women.

I would suggest that in many cases, it's not abandonment because the bints are getting up the duff in full knowledge that they're going to be raising the sprog on their own.

And this isn't an exclusively black issue. Loads of poor, white totty do the same as it's a way of getting housed. So this can have more to do with class, poverty and the housing and benefits system.

Thus, the question then becomes why are the black kids of poor single mums in council estates more likely than white kids to get into knives and gangs.

This is a valid question which should be investigated. But dog whistle racism hiding behind media conspiracy theories isn't the way to go about it.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

"You lot"?

Anti-semitism imo :redcard:

.

Have a heart. That **** Monty would turn Jesus into an anti-semite

[Burney]

No. Well, not the point I'm making.

My point is that you'll come out and say this openly.

You won't hide it behind a comment suggesting there's some form of politically correct media conspiracy when, as you say, Trevor Philips, the Times and the Graun have been banging on about this for ages.

And to engage with you in open debate about this subject, you say: the matter of casually impregnating and abandoning young women.

I would suggest that in many cases, it's not abandonment because the bints are getting up the duff in full knowledge that they're going to be raising the sprog on their own.

And this isn't an exclusively black issue. Loads of poor, white totty do the same as it's a way of getting housed. So this can have more to do with class, poverty and the housing and benefits system.

Thus, the question then becomes why are the black kids of poor single mums in council estates more likely than white kids to get into knives and gangs.

This is a valid question which should be investigated. But dog whistle racism hiding behind media conspiracy theories isn't the way to go about it.

Well you could do that. But then you'd have to start asking difficult questions about why such a relatively small ethnic component of western societies commits such a disproportionate amount of their violent crime. You would have to do so, of course, while noting that it can't just be poverty (because similarly or more impoverished ethnic groups do not over-represent statistically to the same extent) and that it can't be education or opportunities (because by some distance the most educationally-disadvantaged group in this country now is white working-class boys).
And you'd have to choose between asking these questions publicly (at which point you'd DEFINITELY be called a racist and de-platformed from campuses left right and centre - cf Charles Murray) or just do the easy thing and keep your head down and keep schtum.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Did you just respond to a post intimating that you can't talk about the underlying causes of knife crime without being called a racist by...calling me a racist? :clap:

No. I said that people can and do talk about relationship between race and knife crime.

And to do so doesn't make people like Trevor Philips a racist.

What is racist is to make snide, dog whistle implications while pretending you're simply talking about a media conspiracy.

[Sir C]

No. Well, not the point I'm making.

My point is that you'll come out and say this openly.

You won't hide it behind a comment suggesting there's some form of politically correct media conspiracy when, as you say, Trevor Philips, the Times and the Graun have been banging on about this for ages.

And to engage with you in open debate about this subject, you say: the matter of casually impregnating and abandoning young women.

I would suggest that in many cases, it's not abandonment because the bints are getting up the duff in full knowledge that they're going to be raising the sprog on their own.

And this isn't an exclusively black issue. Loads of poor, white totty do the same as it's a way of getting housed. So this can have more to do with class, poverty and the housing and benefits system.

Thus, the question then becomes why are the black kids of poor single mums in council estates more likely than white kids to get into knives and gangs.

This is a valid question which should be investigated. But dog whistle racism hiding behind media conspiracy theories isn't the way to go about it.

Anyway, I'm going on holiday in one hour and 50 minutes and I couldn't be more excited!

Tonight I am to overnight in Cambridge. I want Vietnamese food! I wonder if there's a good Vietnamese in Cambridge?

[Burney]

Anyway, I'm going on holiday in one hour and 50 minutes and I couldn't be more excited!

Tonight I am to overnight in Cambridge. I want Vietnamese food! I wonder if there's a good Vietnamese in Cambridge?

You could have stayed with us. I could have taken you to my local where I am known and your man from the telly is a barman.

But no. You spurn this for 'Vietnamese food' :-(

[Sir C]

You could have stayed with us. I could have taken you to my local where I am known and your man from the telly is a barman.

But no. You spurn this for 'Vietnamese food' :-(

You don't live in Cambridge b.

Anyways, I could hardly have invited myself, could I?

I'd settle for Malaysian. I just need some spice, yegetme?

[Burney]

You don't live in Cambridge b.

Anyways, I could hardly have invited myself, could I?

I'd settle for Malaysian. I just need some spice, yegetme?

Naturally you could! Anyway, I live about half an hour from Cambridge.

We have a Thai, but Thai's a bit old hat, isn't it?

[Sir C]

Naturally you could! Anyway, I live about half an hour from Cambridge.

We have a Thai, but Thai's a bit old hat, isn't it?

Do you? Half an hour from Cambridge, you say? I find the geography of up north extremely confusing. There's just so much of it. I suppose you're somewhere near Lincoln then. Keicester?

[Burney]

Do you? Half an hour from Cambridge, you say? I find the geography of up north extremely confusing. There's just so much of it. I suppose you're somewhere near Lincoln then. Keicester?

:nod: It's basically a vast, untamed wasteland stretching from Junction 25 of the M25 to John O'Groats. It is stalked by Woolly Mammoths, Flat Vowels and Leave voters

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

GG is claiming that it's untrue to say there's not an honest and open debate being had about the role of parents in youth crime. But you can be absolutely f*cking certain that if we asked him about why parents are failing in this role, he would instantly blame austerity, structural racism, and anything else that distracts from questions about individual agency and choice, or, heaven forbid, cultural traits.

And as soon as you dare to mention such things, he'll call you a dog-whistle racist.

It's a neat and effective trick, I'll give him that.

How can you be absolutely fücking certain how I'll respond to a question if you've never asked me?

You don't think that having spent over 20 years with the street kids in Delhi, where 6 of my friends have died on the streets, I have "questions about individual agency and choice" of the parents who abused their kids forcing them to run away from home for a life (and death) on the streets?

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

"You lot"?

Anti-semitism imo :redcard:

For the record, I'm quite happy for scumbags of whatever ethnicity to keep stabbing one another. As long as they stay away from decent people and I don't have to pay to clean up the mess, I see no problem.

"You lot" was referring to middle class Goras (whites.) {Of which I myself was originally one.}

I'm not a great fan of Judaism as a religion simply because unlike all the other faiths, they couldn't be bothered to go to India. But I hate anti-Semites because they're often Corbynistas. And Tankies are, by definition, wrong about everything.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Well you could do that. But then you'd have to start asking difficult questions about why such a relatively small ethnic component of western societies commits such a disproportionate amount of their violent crime. You would have to do so, of course, while noting that it can't just be poverty (because similarly or more impoverished ethnic groups do not over-represent statistically to the same extent) and that it can't be education or opportunities (because by some distance the most educationally-disadvantaged group in this country now is white working-class boys).
And you'd have to choose between asking these questions publicly (at which point you'd DEFINITELY be called a racist and de-platformed from campuses left right and centre - cf Charles Murray) or just do the easy thing and keep your head down and keep schtum.

The point is, B, that I agree with your post entirely.

I think it ridiculous that academics can't debate this stuff because of their idiot students and therefore, as you say, just keep their heads down.

This debate needs to be had and it helps no-one by avoiding it.

It's clearly a cultural issue that can only be addressed by discussing the culture. As I'm an anti-Septic racist and I hate rap music, I blame it on them listening to Septic rap nowadays instead of listening to the peace and love of West Indian reggae. But I'm just taking the pîss, it's obviously something serious.

As you say, it's not poverty, education or opportunities. But we need to have a real discussion. Dog whistle racism disguised as an attack on media political correctness does nothing to help fix the problem. It's why I say that I actually respect your opinions even if I don't agree with them, because you'll discuss this sort of shît openly.

[Burney]

The point is, B, that I agree with your post entirely.

I think it ridiculous that academics can't debate this stuff because of their idiot students and therefore, as you say, just keep their heads down.

This debate needs to be had and it helps no-one by avoiding it.

It's clearly a cultural issue that can only be addressed by discussing the culture. As I'm an anti-Septic racist and I hate rap music, I blame it on them listening to Septic rap nowadays instead of listening to the peace and love of West Indian reggae. But I'm just taking the pîss, it's obviously something serious.

As you say, it's not poverty, education or opportunities. But we need to have a real discussion. Dog whistle racism disguised as an attack on media political correctness does nothing to help fix the problem. It's why I say that I actually respect your opinions even if I don't agree with them, because you'll discuss this sort of shît openly.

The point is that Monty is 100% correct that there is a very deliberate effort on the part of the cultural left to shut down that sensible debate and prevent it from happening by screaming ’racist’. That means that the only place it even gets mentioned is in places where they have no social currency to lose such as the right wing press (because they’re going to be called racist whatever they do, so what the fùck).
The point is that accusations of racism (dog whistle or overt) are not helpful and simply serve to close down discussion.
In fact, the very concept of racism is wildly unhelpful in any grown-up debate, since the term is so loaded. The accusation is now the rhetorical nuclear option that wins all battles, but destroys everything else - good and bad -in the process.
So if you think someone’s being racist, engage with them in factual terms, but avoid the word, since it’s a dead hand on rational discourse.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Watch the fúckin' match you miserable old tosser - Monty may well be right but he's probably right for all the wrong reasons.

Here's a stream that seems to work quite well

http://cyclingentertainment.stream/arsenal-vs-valencia/

[redgunamo]

I don't think he can avoid it. Isn't he the "cultural left" you're on about.


Anyway, I told you, they're not interested in being "right", merely that you are wrong. Like children.



The point is that Monty is 100% correct that there is a very deliberate effort on the part of the cultural left to shut down that sensible debate and prevent it from happening by screaming ’racist’. That means that the only place it even gets mentioned is in places where they have no social currency to lose such as the right wing press (because they’re going to be called racist whatever they do, so what the fùck).
The point is that accusations of racism (dog whistle or overt) are not helpful and simply serve to close down discussion.
In fact, the very concept of racism is wildly unhelpful in any grown-up debate, since the term is so loaded. The accusation is now the rhetorical nuclear option that wins all battles, but destroys everything else - good and bad -in the process.
So if you think someone’s being racist, engage with them in factual terms, but avoid the word, since it’s a dead hand on rational discourse.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

The point is that Monty is 100% correct that there is a very deliberate effort on the part of the cultural left to shut down that sensible debate and prevent it from happening by screaming ’racist’. That means that the only place it even gets mentioned is in places where they have no social currency to lose such as the right wing press (because they’re going to be called racist whatever they do, so what the fùck).
The point is that accusations of racism (dog whistle or overt) are not helpful and simply serve to close down discussion.
In fact, the very concept of racism is wildly unhelpful in any grown-up debate, since the term is so loaded. The accusation is now the rhetorical nuclear option that wins all battles, but destroys everything else - good and bad -in the process.
So if you think someone’s being racist, engage with them in factual terms, but avoid the word, since it’s a dead hand on rational discourse.

1. Monty didn't say "there is a very deliberate effort on the part of the cultural left to shut down that sensible debate and prevent it from happening by screaming ’racist’", he said "you basically hear absolutely nothing about the role of parents." Which is both something completely different as well as being total bøllocks.

2. If it's only mentioned in the right wing press, why does the Grauniad go on about it?

3. No, it's the dog whistle racism that is "not helpful and simply serves to close down discussion." How on earth can it be more helpful to say "we aren't allowed to talk about this because of the media's inverse racism" than to actually have an open debate on the subject? That's why insidious dog whistle racism is so dangerous. Because it makes the implications without allowing space for an objective discussion on the matter.

4. Of course "the very concept of racism is wildly unhelpful in any grown-up debate". Which is why, again, accusing the media of inverse racism means we can't have objective analysis.

5. Again, "the accusation is now the rhetorical nuclear option that wins all battles" applies equally to the accusation of inverse racism. There are two sides to every coin, it's simply a question of perspective.

6. "So if you think someone’s being racist, engage with them in factual terms." Which is exactly what I did. I pointed out that it's factually inaccurate to say the media don't allow any debate on this issue when I've seen it discussed in both the papers I read every day.

I said that black academics are warning against the belief that somehow black women make such better mothers that they don't need a father. I also pointed out that as many white, working class women get up the duff so they can get a house and raise a kid without working, you can't blame the violence on the lack of a father. It must be a cultural issue.

So I have no idea why you think it was I that was avoiding rational discourse. I said I was up for an open debate on this issue as opposed to saying we can't have one because of the media's inverse racism.