What's I'm seeing is mostly Black folks -- like me -- being in shock. I haven't see the cancelling among Black folks. Just shock. Like, naw, that can't be true, can it?! I hope he is innocent, but how often have we seen men generally act the fool when it comes to women? Using our superior size to intimidate and harm them? So it wouldn't surprise me if it's true though I'd be hurt.
I appreciate you sharing that and I agree with you re: the shock but I have seen some comments opportunistically cancelling him. Nevertheless this article isn't about *him* specifically and I specify that. I'm not interested in, or qualified to explore his guilt or innocence specifically. It's about the theme of this publication - financial trauma - and how that can exist through instances where unfair assessments or presumptions of guilt over innocence are made. We've seen this occur historically over and over again with allegations of rape, abuse, assault, harassment, etc are later debunked as untrue after everything was lost. So what confuses me is the projection that I seem to be defending this man and minimizing the possible assault of a woman, which is not the case. If he indeed was wrong then he should be held accountable, but like I said I'm less interested in the celebrity gossip than I am in demonstrating how financial trauma can exist even on the level of the ultra high net worth and specifically through the lens of the Black experience.
PS... re: men using our superior size to intimidate and harm women. That is not my reality nor is that the reality of the MEN I've had exposure to/circle myself with. I do not harm women, intimidate women, or endorse the harm or intimidation of women, etc. I was raised to respect and protect women. So although I can understand where you were trying to go with that (because some males do perform in this way), I can't simply agree that that is the norm because it isn't *my* norm.
Maybe because you went and took the time to prematurely write an article about this when a huge part of the internet is literally regurgitating the “they’re trying to take another black man down” narrative — which only goes on to perpetuate dismissing victims.
What the internet is perpetuating isn’t what I’ve articulated though. In fact I specifically mention that I’m not debating Majors’ guilt or innocence. Yes I used the moment to illustrate a point but the point stands on its own with or without the Majors incident having occurred. I appreciate you taking time to explain that however. It’s not a perspective I considered.
Isn’t that the name of the game though? I’m not promoting any agenda outside of discussing the implications financial trauma. That’s the point of the newsletter. If current events drive engagement that allows for me to do that why is that wrong? All of the traditional media outlets are doing it. Again, I’m not saying he did or didn’t do anything. I’m acknowledging a trend I see with Black men of prominence in the media and how that can trigger traumas.
I’m not criticizing you for using this moment to drive engagement. Rather, I’m pointing out that THIS ain’t THAT. Most ppl online are not even “cancelling” Majors. Ppl are either in shock that it could be true or presuming innocence until more evidence is provided.
White males (and females) have convenient amnesia when it comes to their treatment of said Black males historically through present day and therefore dodge accountability by trying to gaslight everyone else into thinking it didn't happen. Everyone has also caught on.
What's I'm seeing is mostly Black folks -- like me -- being in shock. I haven't see the cancelling among Black folks. Just shock. Like, naw, that can't be true, can it?! I hope he is innocent, but how often have we seen men generally act the fool when it comes to women? Using our superior size to intimidate and harm them? So it wouldn't surprise me if it's true though I'd be hurt.
I appreciate you sharing that and I agree with you re: the shock but I have seen some comments opportunistically cancelling him. Nevertheless this article isn't about *him* specifically and I specify that. I'm not interested in, or qualified to explore his guilt or innocence specifically. It's about the theme of this publication - financial trauma - and how that can exist through instances where unfair assessments or presumptions of guilt over innocence are made. We've seen this occur historically over and over again with allegations of rape, abuse, assault, harassment, etc are later debunked as untrue after everything was lost. So what confuses me is the projection that I seem to be defending this man and minimizing the possible assault of a woman, which is not the case. If he indeed was wrong then he should be held accountable, but like I said I'm less interested in the celebrity gossip than I am in demonstrating how financial trauma can exist even on the level of the ultra high net worth and specifically through the lens of the Black experience.
PS... re: men using our superior size to intimidate and harm women. That is not my reality nor is that the reality of the MEN I've had exposure to/circle myself with. I do not harm women, intimidate women, or endorse the harm or intimidation of women, etc. I was raised to respect and protect women. So although I can understand where you were trying to go with that (because some males do perform in this way), I can't simply agree that that is the norm because it isn't *my* norm.
Thanks again.
C'mon, now. Nowhere in my message did I say it's the norm. I said it happens often. And it does. Your "not all men" response is disappointing.
I hope you check the update and recognize now that my article was accurate.
Lmao
Unsubscribing
Any particular feedback around why?
Maybe because you went and took the time to prematurely write an article about this when a huge part of the internet is literally regurgitating the “they’re trying to take another black man down” narrative — which only goes on to perpetuate dismissing victims.
What the internet is perpetuating isn’t what I’ve articulated though. In fact I specifically mention that I’m not debating Majors’ guilt or innocence. Yes I used the moment to illustrate a point but the point stands on its own with or without the Majors incident having occurred. I appreciate you taking time to explain that however. It’s not a perspective I considered.
All of your points are sound. Respectfully, using this moment to make them is pure extrapolation.
Isn’t that the name of the game though? I’m not promoting any agenda outside of discussing the implications financial trauma. That’s the point of the newsletter. If current events drive engagement that allows for me to do that why is that wrong? All of the traditional media outlets are doing it. Again, I’m not saying he did or didn’t do anything. I’m acknowledging a trend I see with Black men of prominence in the media and how that can trigger traumas.
I’m not criticizing you for using this moment to drive engagement. Rather, I’m pointing out that THIS ain’t THAT. Most ppl online are not even “cancelling” Majors. Ppl are either in shock that it could be true or presuming innocence until more evidence is provided.
Black males play the race card to avoid accountability. Everyone has caught on
White males (and females) have convenient amnesia when it comes to their treatment of said Black males historically through present day and therefore dodge accountability by trying to gaslight everyone else into thinking it didn't happen. Everyone has also caught on.