|Steve Harvey vs Kevin Samuels|
Rasheed, Muhammad. "IS THIS TRUE? - The Difference Between Steve Harvey Fans versus Kevin Samuel Fans.'" Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 00 Date 2023 [cartoon pending]. Permanent marker w/Adobe Photoshop color.
CLICK & SUBSCRIBE below for the Artist's Description of this #MRasheedCartoons image:
M. Rasheed on YouTube!
M. Rasheed on BitChute!
Summer King - The same men villanizing Steve Harvey idolize Kevin Samuels 😂 and Go! I’ve got time today !!
Muhammad Rasheed - Harvey deserved to be vilified after that infamous interview with Mo'Nique. He revealed himself as anything but manly.
Samuels was harsh in tone, but he was battling the same forces that destroyed the sacred Black American Family that wielded mass media weaponry much bigger than his platform, so he needed to be.
Summer King - @Muhammad... Like telling women that they were undesirable because they were overweight…. Some of his statements were factual but some of his remarks came from a place of bitterness. Overall his delivery was insensitive and in poor taste.
Muhammad Rasheed - Summer wrote: "like telling women that they were undesirable because they were overweight…"
This was a very important message on his platform, because the average woman has been casually indoctrinated in the idea that she can get any man she wants. There is a portion of truth here, since the average-level woman has the sexual pull of a male celebrity... but that's only in the sexual marketplace where marriage isn't on the table.
The problem is that the type of male (6 ft+, wealthy, handsome) that most women say they want to marry them is only a fraction of the male populace, and that type of guy is VERY picky. The type of guy that all women say they want—who is a literal statistical rarity—absolutely personally believes that overweight women are undesirable. Pointing that out is not being mean, but provides some of the basic info you need to be aware of if you intended to compete with all the other women who also want that guy to marry them. Getting upset and calling everybody names because you need to achieve and maintain a certain level of physical fitness if you reasonably expect to get anywhere near close to the goal you said that you want, will not help you.
Summer wrote: "Some of his statements were factual but some of his remarks came from a place of bitterness."
This is a very subjective opinion that doesn't actually match Samuel's body of material. It's much more likely that the women who discover that in order to attract the attention of the type of male they want to marry, they would have to work harder in the social relations sphere than they have ever worked in their lives to compete for that guy, and they found the hard truth a bitter pill to swallow and decided to blame Samuels himself for their disappointments.
Summer wrote: "Overall his delivery was insensitive and in poor taste."
Granted, but the chances are that women who had priced themselves out of the marriage marketplace for the type of guy they want by presenting with:
- over the age of peak fertility
- high body counts
- children from previous relationships
- masculine qualities developed from a successful working career
...all the traits that the type of guy you want to attract DOESN'T like — you would have responded with a brat tantrum no matter how that message was delivered because you've been unfairly brainwashed into believing everyone should just bow down to your whims because of #BlackGirlMagic fantasies.
That's not how reality works, ma'am. The sexual revolution may have worked out great for the corporate paymasters and certain slimeball, partisan political figures, but it has failed the family. If you want to be happy, you're going to have to return to a portion of the old traditional values system.
***SUMMER KING BLOCKED ME***
Radi Lewis - Yep... you pretty much nailed it.
Muhammad Rasheed - I packaged that discussion up and posted it on my blog because, despite all of her "I got time!" and "These guys don't want no smoke!" talk, she Blocked me before the argument even got good. 😒
So now I'm soliciting for debate partners made of sterner stuff that I may test out my mastery of this new material.
Radi Lewis - I think that would be a very interesting back and forth. From what I hear from the folks who don't like him is his tone. While I don't agree with everything I think more of what he says should be taken at face value.
Muhammad Rasheed - Radi wrote: "From what I hear from the folks who don't like him is his tone."
TRANSLATION: "He didn't tell me what I want to hear and he made sense with his uncomfortable truths, so he needs to just shut up!"
Samuels was not their man and was under zero obligation to rub their backs and coo into their ears when he explained why they were 100% wrong. The 'tone police' response is a worthless fallacy and personally irritates me just as much as it does when my white racist ideological foes use it. The only thing that matters here is whether these women went to the gym or not after they heard Samuels' message, or settled for a guy at their same average level, or lower if they were a high-income earner. If they aren't trying to win and only want to continue to complain because the universe doesn't bend to BlackGirlMagic in real life, then there's no need to keep talking about it with them. I'll just smh and change the subject.
Radi wrote: "While I don't agree with everything"
What parts did you disagree with?
Fredro Hampton - So you unabashedly support Kevin? 🤮
Fredro Hampton - His delivery definitely sucks but his lack of consideration of psychological and historical context shows why he foolishly and ignorantly chose to address the subject matter in this way
Fredro Hampton - You can address the bad choices and warped views of a group without hooking your wagon to the more known subject matter "authority".
Muhammad Rasheed - Fredro wrote: "So you unabashedly support Kevin?"
No, there's some aspects of his material I disagree with. Like the idea that the high-value figure can "exercise his options" and his household just has to put up with immoral foolishness, and similar items.
Fredro wrote: "but his lack of consideration of psychological and historical context"
I didn't find his work to be like that. In fact, since I had gotten used to arguing with some of the biggest knuckleheads on social media, who to a man were all fans of Samuels, I assumed his work would demonstrate a "lack of consideration of psychological and historical context," but I was wrong. That made me open my mind and take the time to see what he was really talking about.
Now I've reached the phase in my own study processes where I'm ready to argue the material myself with game opponents to see where the holes are.
Fredro wrote: "You can address the bad choices and warped views of a group without hooking your wagon to the more known subject matter 'authority.'"
A couple of times I saw Samuels make comments that fell in the lane of "if you want to make the top money in markets dominated by whites, you're going to have to conform to white expectations," et cetera. It's difficult to counter that logic. The only realistic way to fix that particular problem is with the robust Reparations program the activists are fighting for — a point I was later surprised to see Samuels himself mention in a clip filmed shortly before his death, which is why I was inspired to check out his work in the first place.
Fredro Hampton - My arguments will always come back to the same points. Because they are true and because my mission is only for people to have more complete thought processes.
Muhammad Rasheed - Fredro wrote: "my arguments will always come back to the same points."
Against Samuels' stuff you mean?
Fredro wrote: "Because they are true and because my mission is only for people to have more complete thought processes."
I'm open to hearing your arguments.
Fredro Hampton - How can one be condescending and dispense condemnation on a woman who loves a man and has his child?
This I ask when we know regardless of marital status or finances a woman is compelled to have children by experiences that come with being poor, Black and a victim of systemic issues and anti-Blackness.
Waiting on a particular guy to marry her before having a child is a wonderful sentiment but not always realistic. Some men wont marry knowing it will adversely affect their finances. You know why a woman is better off single (on paper) for insurance reasons than married to me working at this factory with shorty benefits. And we know systemically how government subsidies destroy and help simultaneously. We know why the man's insurance is shit because of capitalism and how anything for the poor working class is not meant to elevate.
Am I to condemn her inclination to have a child by one she loves and am I to condemn him for not marrying her?
Now the topic of discussion should be on prepping single adults as well as married couples on how to be great partners and parents.
Muhammad Rasheed - Fredro wrote: "how can one be condescending and dispense condemnation on a woman who loves a man and has his child?"
I can't say that I see Samuels being condescending to the people themselves, but to the mindset of defending a modern lifestyle that treats having kids out of wedlock as if it isn't a big deal, blaming all the problems on "toxic men" and using the #BlackGirlMagic trope to pretend her own stuff doesn't stink. Those women who fiercely hold onto those points as an ideology worth preserving are the ones Samuels would lose patience with.
Fredro wrote: "This I ask when we know regardless of marital status or finances a woman is compelled to have children by experiences that come with being poor, Black and a victim of systemic issues and anti-Blackness."
I think the example of the previous generations — like the chronically poor Black Americans(ADOS) during the Great Depression — keeping the family together to combat the negative effects of both poverty and systemic racism is significant. I think it's clear that the break up of the ADOS Family is the effects of a deliberate attack, and the brainwashing that has our men and women treating the modern system as something that should be preserved, fought for, or even justified & coddled should be fiercely countered. People criticize Samuels' tone, but I don't think a gentle-n-soft counter-propaganda would be very effective. Not against a destructive trend that's pretending to be "progress" for women worth them fighting for.
Fredro wrote: "Am I to condemn her inclination to have a child by one she loves and am I to condemn him for not marrying her?"
Having children out of wedlock is wrong and should be condemned. The ADOS Family should be celebrated and encouraged just as it has been in generations past. Coddling behaviors that have measurable destructive outcomes in our communities will not help anything, and if the truth stings and hurts people's feelings, then so what? What matters is that we get the people back on track and develop new norms that actually give our children a better chance for success than what they have today.
Fredro wrote: "Now the topic of discussion should be on prepping single adults as well as married couples on how to be great partners and parents."
This part actually represents the core part of Kevin Samuels' platform. Once people are able to process pass the harsh truths and let go of the destructive modern ideologies they were holding on to, then they are able to receive the instruction for improving their position in society.
Fredro Hampton - His delivery is crap, he doesn't for example tell my wife she messed up by choosing a "felon" unless he explains that it's not because I'm a felon but because I am a "felon" who is not yet proven or prepared for higher functioning.
Fredro Hampton - And so here is why I broadly condemn him , because he makes broad statements and assessments that lack detail. This makes the women hating buffoons overjoyed because they can use his less than details banter as fodder. He I believe knew this but much like Republicans who see racists aligned with them, they ignore it or play into it because they need that base.
Muhammad Rasheed - Some folks get stuck at the part where the modern ideology that they bought into about how they perceive the world and their choices has failed them. Some can't let that go and want to defend it to the death even when it doesn't make sense and they know their points aren't holding up. Usually they attack Samuels with' tone police' fallacies as if that's the real reason they were messing up and will more than likely die miserable & alone if they stay on the path they are on.
For others, they get walked down and are able to let go of their ego so they can begin having a productive discussion.
Muhammad Rasheed - Fredro wrote: "And so here is why I broadly condemn him , because he makes broad statements and assessments that lack detail."
I couldn't condemn him for that type of stuff, since the statistics back the general situation. He's able to get into the weeds for a more detailed analysis only if the interviewee is able to get passed their feelings.
Fredro wrote: "This makes the women hating buffoons overjoyed because they can use his less than details banter as fodder. He I believe knew this but much like Republicans who see racists aligned with them, they ignore it or play into it because they need that base."
This was also the reason I initially assumed his material lacked value, because those same woman-hating goons I argued with happened to have Samuels' portrait on their wall next to the worthless Tariq Nasheed & Professor Black Truth. Once I looked into the material myself, I saw that they lacked discernment and conspicuously ignored the parts of Samuels' work that didn't align to their silly and self-serving caricatures they had molded it into.
Fredro Hampton - Last point polygamists societies exist and existed for us pre colonialism and what's at the base here is monogamy
Muhammad Rasheed - Fredro wrote: "last point polygamists societies exist and existed for us pre colonialism and what's at the base here is monogamy"
Monogamy is the best case situation. Even among the small, high-value male population, only a fraction of those are able to successfully juggle multiple partners without creating a sh*t storm of melodrama & disfunction.
In the Qur'an, the One God allows multiple wives only under certain circumstances, and none of those involve greed-fueled sexual lust. In any event, American society isn't set up for the polygamist family structure anyway, so it's best to use the same highly-disciplined self-restraint they applied to ascend to the TopG business status for their personal relationships, too.
[TOON] The Slut Loophole by M. Rasheed
Fredro Hampton - I'm not buying into the conquered mindset that would have me believe my conquerors way is the only way. Islam or no Islam we as Africans had ways of life pre Arab and European and I don't accept that their conquests and colonialism is a blessing that saved us. We had salvation before them and without them otherwise I must believe enslavement was a necessary evil.
Fredro Hampton - And as for your cartoon, I'm wit it but muta was permitted for long term travelers in and out of war time. Hell the horn dogs try to use Aisha as an excuse to marry young girls 🙄.
They ignore the elder women married which brought them esteem and made them cared for. It was about caring for our Ummah young and old maybe just maybe, love would creep in and mutually compell consummation.
Muhammad Rasheed - Fredro wrote: "I'm not buying into the conquered mindset that would have me believe my conquerors way is the only way."
Al-Islam is a religion, not a conquering ideology. It spread across the world because the people were ready to receive it, not because they were forced to submit to it.
There are other ways to perform human behaviors, but the way that the One God instructs is the best way.
Fredro wrote: "Islam or no Islam we as Africans had ways of life pre Arab and European and I don't accept that their conquests and colonialism is a blessing that saved us. We had salvation before them and without them otherwise I must believe enslavement was a necessary evil."
The core message of Al-Islam didn't begin in Arabia with the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). It is the original religion of humankind preached by all the prophets, and included numerous prophets among the African peoples as well. The problem is that, like many others before and after them, replaced God's message with fabrications of their own.
God said that the best situation for humans is monogamy, which means that has always been the best situation for us, even if there are times when events will make the other situation permissible. God makes it clear that even during those situations it would be better for the woman to stay single and tough out her life rather than put up with some TopG's bullsh*t. This is significant, and even partially links to one of your earlier comments about modern women and their choices ("You know why a woman is better off single").
Muhammad Rasheed - Fredro wrote: "And as for your cartoon, I'm wit it but muta was permitted for long term travelers in and out of war time."
The cartoon was just a cover illustration for the blog discussion underneath.
Fredro wrote: "Hell the horn dogs try to use Aisha as an excuse to marry young girls 🙄."
Fredro wrote: "They ignore the elder women married which brought them esteem and made them cared for. It was about caring for our Ummah young and old maybe just maybe, love would creep in and mutually compell consummation."
Yes, this was the reason God gave for allowing up to four wives. It was brought up in the linked discussion.
Fredro Hampton - I didn't just relegate Islam to be an Arab construct nor did I imply all who accepted it early in continental Africa were conquered but conquering helped it spread along with it being pragmatic
Muhammad Rasheed - Fredro wrote: "but conquering helped it spread along with it being pragmatic"
Perhaps to a degree, but the earliest non-Muslim primary sources demonstrate that the religion itself spread organically through word-of-mouth. The conquering era of greedy Arab Expansionism happened later.
Fredro Hampton - I dont agree on how long after the demise of our beloved Rasool (Peace Be Upon Him and His Household) but we are in close enough proximity
Fredro Hampton - I close with this. A tighter explanation would have kept the bullshit shells of men from attaching themselves to him and from women whom it didn't apply to from being offended
Fredro Hampton - So fuck him for not caring enough about the discord he helped promote
Muhammad Rasheed - Fredro wrote: "but we are in close enough proximity"
There was enough time to provide evidence by the disbelieving scholars in the book I linked that the whole "Islam was spread by the sword" talking point was just a myth. There was a clear dividing line between the spread of Islam versus the later new Islamic World Sultans who just wanted to capture new land for their empire.
Fredro Hampton - Is this the point where I block you?
Muhammad Rasheed - Fredro wrote: "A tighter explanation would have kept the bullshit shells of men from attaching themselves to him and from women whom it didn't apply to from being offended"
That comes across as a naïve opinion to me. You yourself pointed out how diabolical conservative white racists like to cherry-pick material to fit the narratives they want to push. That concept will forever be among us by those who are not interested in the truth, but on what they want to be true. Those "bullshit shells of men" will always be here, to greater or lesser degree depending on how we manage our affairs moving forward.
I appreciate the discussion, Fredro. Thank you for your time.
Fredro Hampton - We definitely disagree on that one. But I agree in my appreciation of our discussion
Muhammad Rasheed - Fredro wrote: "is this the point where I block you?"
lol Don't. You might feel like revisiting it one day. 😛
Fredro Hampton - 😆
Get a signed copy of M. Rasheed's first novel!
Post a Comment