Someone think of the gangsters!!!

[jackson13]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32050465/ns/business-consumer_news/

My brain hurts from all of this. Ouch.



The stick comment has been edited out. Hope everyone is happy now.

[Abbie Normal]

I read that earlier today.

A quote about kids in low income, urban areas from Holly P. Alford, a professor of fashion design at Virginia Commonwealth University who studies youth and African-American fashion
"They feel like their society looks down on them," Alford said. "Sometimes some of these status symbols are just a way of saying, 'Hey, look! Here I am. See who I am?'"


Maybe it is time for someone to go to these kids and tell them to grow up. It doesn't seem to bother kids in countries like Thailand or India who are just as poor and barely have clean drinking water. Or that same person can say, "Work hard, study and you will get ahead and then your kids can have what you can't have right now."

[FLAME_ON]

My heart goes out to those guys...

[QUENTIN]

Maybe it is time for someone to go to these kids and tell them to grow up. It doesn't seem to bother kids in countries like Thailand or India who are just as poor and barely have clean drinking water. Or that same person can say, "Work hard, study and you will get ahead and then your kids can have what you can't have right now."

The practice of buying more than you can afford is patently dumb. But...

Kids in Thailand and India don't live blocks away from the richest people in the world. Kids in Thailand and India are not constantly inundated everywhere they turn by advertising that targets them and convinces them of the aura and status symbol of nice things, or that "Clothes make the man" and one must "Fake it till they make it." Poor kids in Thailand and India may even be just as deeply insecure and depressed as poor kids here, but they're not part of a society that values material wealth above all else. It's entirely different societies and cultures, so of course the deficits of this society manifest themselves differently than the deficits in another, particularly among our poor because they are uniquely situated within the wealthiest country on Earth.

Also, the idea that if you "Work hard, study [then] you will get ahead and then your kids can have what you can't have right now." is one of the saddest and least accurate lies we attempt to sell. The fact is, if you're urban poor in this country, unless you're a statistical anomaly like geniuses with decent home lives, those with incredible athletic prowess, or one of the lucky one-in-a-million whose stories are so unique we use them motivationally, you're almost certainly going to remain urban poor mostly irrespective of how "hard you work and study" at your low-paying, low-responsibility job and terrible school.

[BakeTheMooCow]

So poor + black = gangster.

I see.

[someguy]

One time I saw someone drowning in a lake and I told them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps I'm sure it helped.

[QUENTIN]

So poor + black = gangster.

I see.

Especially interesting considering the article specifically details that the subjects are a dockworker helping support his mother and trying to send his little sister to college while studying in a community youth program to get his GED, and two recently laid-off guys saving their money to support their families while they also study in the program to get their GEDs (in other words, working hard and studying hard). How gangster of them.

They don't want to be looked down on for being poor, but now must because they have to use their meager earnings to help their families...just classic comedy. I hope they don't "pop a cap" at me for messing with their radios. Doesn't it make you just want to beat them with a stick?

[jackson13]

Doesn't it make you just want to beat them with a stick?

It makes me want to beat them with a stick because they are in fact working to help their families, yet here they are bitching and complaining that they cant afford name brand clothing to help them look "gangster" anymore. They need to wake up and realize that clothes dont make you who you are, and the fact that if you need to dress yourself in name brand clothing in order to be seen as something different, or better than you yourself believe you are, is downright pathetic.

The clothes I'm wearing right now, a t-shirt, shorts and boxers, all cost me a combined $15. You dont hear me whining in the news one tiny little bit that because of what I have on means I'm not a good person, or that I'm poor. Its not what you wear that makes you what you are, its what you do and who you become. I'll respect the fact that they are dock workers and whatnot, trying to provide for a family. I'll respect that any time any day of the week. But what I dont respect is someone crying out for sympathy because they can no longer afford the type of clothing they mention in the article.


And by the way, I used the term gangster, because I originally read the article on Fark.com and the term used in the headline there was "Blingster". Gangster, unlike blingster, is a real term/real word and I went for that.




Edit: Also, when you go out and spend $300 for a pair of jeans or $500 a week on clothes or whatever, that is the exact reason why you are poor. These morons apparently cant understand that, so they blame it on the color of their skin and say "I'm poor because I'm black and I get held down by the man because of my skin color" instead of waking the fuck up and realizing "shit, maybe I'm poor because I dont know how to save money or spend wisely. Maybe instead of dropping $300 for those jeans I could put that $300 in the bank and help myself and my family out even more...."

[QUENTIN]

It makes me want to beat them with a stick because they are in fact working to help their families, yet here they are bitching and complaining that they cant afford name brand clothing to help them look "gangster" anymore. They need to wake up and realize that clothes dont make you who you are, and the fact that if you need to dress yourself in name brand clothing in order to be seen as something different, or better than you yourself believe you are, is downright pathetic.

Poverty is indeed pathetic. The deep-seated insecurity, shame, and depression that come with being destitute in an incredibly wealthy nation that values material possessions so highly often manifest themselves in trying to mask how poor you are so that it's not so immediately obvious to the people around you and you don't feel so worthless and ashamed. Being the victim of institutionalized poverty is certainly something we should beat people for.

The clothes I'm wearing right now, a t-shirt, shorts and boxers, all cost me a combined $15. You dont hear me whining in the news one tiny little bit that because of what I have on means I'm not a good person, or that I'm poor. Its not what you wear that makes you what you are, its what you do and who you become. I'll respect the fact that they are dock workers and whatnot, trying to provide for a family. I'll respect that any time any day of the week. But what I dont respect is someone crying out for sympathy because they can no longer afford the type of clothing they mention in the article.

Your assumption that they are whining, complaining, bitching, and "crying out for sympathy" in the news seems to suppose that a couple of poor black teenagers and young twenty-somethings called up a newspaper editor complaining about how they can't afford nice things anymore with the recession and they demand people know their plight because it's so sad and the newspaper decided to run the story. This isn't realistic, but it is what would be required for the young guys to be responsible for the story and gaming for sympathy. Instead, it seems, some reporter was curious how the economic depression has effected designer clothing lines and, knowing many of the urban poor wear designer clothes, went to a local youth education office to try to find some quotes. There, she probably asked people whether or not they bought less nice clothes nowadays, and the kids responded that yeah, while they used to have a nice pair of Nikes and could afford 7-for-all-mankind jeans, now times are tight and they don't have any extra cash to spend on themselves, it all goes towards necessities, which for them are ample because unlike most people their age, they're also helping support a family. Just makes you wanna bash their fucking skulls in with a pipe, huh?


And by the way, I used the term gangster, because I originally read the article on Fark.com and the term used in the headline there was "Blingster". Gangster, unlike blingster, is a real term/real word and I went for that.

But "blingster", while indeed not recognized Oxford's English, is at least a somewhat accurate descriptor of the subjects. Even "blingster" might be pushing it and perpetuating a stereotype, since this is describing designer jeans, hats, and shoes worth a few hundred dollars not the gold and diamond jewelry worth tens of thousands of dollars that is commonly described as "bling," but at least it's the same ballpark. "Gangster" however is not remotely the same thing, gangster means "A member of a gang of criminals" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gangster). These guys are all studying for their GED and working legitimate jobs or were recently laid off from legitimate jobs, not robbing, dealing drugs, or killing people. So calling them gangsters is inaccurate, insulting, and hints at something latent expressed later.



Edit: Also, when you go out and spend $300 for a pair of jeans or $500 a week on clothes or whatever, that is the exact reason why you are poor. These morons apparently cant understand that, so they blame it on the color of their skin and say "I'm poor because I'm black and I get held down by the man because of my skin color" instead of waking the fuck up and realizing "shit, maybe I'm poor because I dont know how to save money or spend wisely. Maybe instead of dropping $300 for those jeans I could put that $300 in the bank and help myself and my family out even more...."

There we go, nothing latent about it now. Fuck those stupid, lazy blacks, right? It doesn't matter that they were born into poverty, given no access to proper education, likely had one working parent and no other adult supervision, dealt with dangerous and crime-ridden neighborhoods with no effective policing to protect them, and almost certainly never saw any example of saving extra money in the unlikely event that there ever was any extra money around to be saved (the median net worth of black Americans, less a house and a car, is $0). It's totally their fault and they're morons for selfishly buying things for themselves that were beyond their means, no teenagers do that except ones that need to be hit with sticks. They shouldn't be commended for working hard to help raise and support their siblings and single mothers, they just need to get hit upside the head by big white guys who know better. Brilliant.

[Preston_79]

Well it looks like the poor economy is forcing these idiots to budget their money. I say idiots, because you are one if you're making under 20G a year and buying designer clothing. 20 years old, living with your mother, who's also helping you raise your 8 year old, and you want designer clothes? Let's try supporting yourself first.

Quentin saying you look gangster is just an expression, it doesn't have anything to do with being a thugs. You can dress gangster and still be a law abiding citizen. I've also heard the expression used by whites. You're tripping out on Jackson over nothing.


THESE PEOPLE AREN'T PATHETIC BECAUSE THEIR POOR, it's because their dumb. They just happen to be poor and dumb.

[BakeTheMooCow]

Quentin saying you look gangster is just an expression, it doesn't have anything to do with being a thugs. You can dress gangster and still be a law abiding citizen. I've also heard the expression used by whites. You're tripping out on Jackson over nothing.

It has everything to do with race. Words are not meaningless.

[QUENTIN]

Well it looks like the poor economy is forcing these idiots to budget their money. I say idiots, because you are one if you're making under 20G a year and buying designer clothing. 20 years old, living with your mother, who's also helping you raise your 8 year old, and you want designer clothes? Let's try supporting yourself first.

Quentin saying you look gangster is just an expression, it doesn't have anything to do with being a thugs. You can dress gangster and still be a law abiding citizen. I've also heard the expression used by whites. You're tripping out on Jackson over nothing.


THESE PEOPLE AREN'T PATHETIC BECAUSE THEIR POOR, it's because their dumb. They just happen to be poor and dumb.

Except that's not true. What I'm saying is, what you, jackson, and many decry as stupid and mock or react to violently has little to do with intelligence and instead is a direct result of being poor in America. Being raised in poverty in a country that so highly values wealth leads to feelings of worthlessness and deep-seated insecurity. When one is raised in a society that measures the worth of a person by how much money they have, those without money feel like they are of little value and are ashamed.

One of the most common coping mechanisms to combat this is to vainly attempt to appear like you're worth more than you are by buying nicer things than you can reasonably afford. As the first quoted young man says, it helped him feel confident, a confidence he likely sorely lacked in general due to the long-term depression of insitutionalized poverty. I'm not saying living beyond your means isn't self-destructive behavior and it wouldn't be better if people only bought what they could afford, but I'm explaining that it is not because these people are dumb or need to be hit with sticks, it is a very common and understandable, if unfortunate, reaction to their horrible environments and sympathy rather than misplaced anger is a more appropriate and reasonable reaction.

This also isn't some psychobabble speculation, it is a well understood and documented phenomenon among America's urban poor that is actually explicitly referenced by every professional interviewed in that story. That and the obvious racial overtones to what jackson has said are what I'm taking him to task for.

[Abbie Normal]

The practice of buying more than you can afford is patently dumb. But...

Kids in Thailand and India don't live blocks away from the richest people in the world. Kids in Thailand and India are not constantly inundated everywhere they turn by advertising that targets them and convinces them of the aura and status symbol of nice things, or that "Clothes make the man" and one must "Fake it till they make it." Poor kids in Thailand and India may even be just as deeply insecure and depressed as poor kids here, but they're not part of a society that values material wealth above all else. It's entirely different societies and cultures, so of course the deficits of this society manifest themselves differently than the deficits in another, particularly among our poor because they are uniquely situated within the wealthiest country on Earth.

Also, the idea that if you "Work hard, study [then] you will get ahead and then your kids can have what you can't have right now." is one of the saddest and least accurate lies we attempt to sell. The fact is, if you're urban poor in this country, unless you're a statistical anomaly like geniuses with decent home lives, those with incredible athletic prowess, or one of the lucky one-in-a-million whose stories are so unique we use them motivationally, you're almost certainly going to remain urban poor mostly irrespective of how "hard you work and study" at your low-paying, low-responsibility job and terrible school.

Have you been to Thailand? I have it is not nearly as bad as you think.

I came from an urban poor community. I worked hard and now I live in an overpriced $350,000 house. It does not take much to live a decent middle class life.

[Tweek]

Three things:

My head hurts from the use of the word gangster in this thread.

I felt my eyes well with joyful tears when I read about Gap Inc's sales being down.

That guy fathered a son when he was 12?! :eek:

[BakeTheMooCow]

Have you been to Thailand? I have it is not nearly as bad as you think.

I came from an urban poor community. I worked hard and now I live in an overpriced $350,000 house. It does not take much to live a decent middle class life.

Your experience =/= the experience of everyone else in this country.

[jackson13]

You know, I had a huge post here that I went back over and deleted because it was so filled with anger over what has transpired in this thread. I made a topic about a news article I read where people are whining because they cant afford to spend hundreds of dollars on things they dont need, and instead should be focused on providing for themselves and their families, and it got turned into "whoa, jackson13 is a racist scumbag who hates "niggers"".

If my words are going to get interpreted into things I never meant or said, then I see no point in continuing to post in this thread. Congratulations, Quentin, you have officially shut me up. Thanks!

[The Postmaster General]

I don't know, WWE tickets are pretty expensive too.

[jackson13]

I don't know, WWE tickets are pretty expensive too.

Yes, they are. In fact, its the sole reason why, in my 25 years on this planet, I have only been to one show, back in 2004.

Btw, thats the second time in as many days that I have been flamed, or attempted to be insulted, over having a WWE wrestler as my avatar. Now, the avatar is gone because I'm just sick of it. Guess people are gonna have to find something else to flame me over. Oh wait, its been done in this thread: I apparently hate black people.

[Reigh Kaufman]

Yes, they are. In fact, its the sole reason why, in my 25 years on this planet, I have only been to one show, back in 2004.

Btw, thats the second time in as many days that I have been flamed, or attempted to be insulted, over having a WWE A as my avatar. Now, the avatar is gone because I'm just sick of it. Guess people are gonna have to find something else to flame me over. Oh wait, its been done in this thread: I apparently hate black people.

Jackson13, not sure what is going on here and a malware infection is making my computer loopy, but why are people accusing you of being a racist and flaming you?

'Cos, fuck, I'll vouch for you.

[jackson13]

Jackson13, not sure what is going on here and a malware infection is making my computer loopy, but why are people accusing you of being a racist and flaming you?

'Cos, fuck them, I'll vouch for you.

Because when I posted this thread to discuss this I said that the people interviewed in the news story should be beaten with sticks for being stupid. Stupid as in they go out and spend hundred of dollars on things they dont need then complain that they are poor and being held down.

That got turned into "jackson13 hates black people". The flame part, I probably misinterpreted myself, but I was insulted yesterday for being a WWE fan and Bubba, while I know he jokes a lot and means well, used that against me in here insinuating that I waste my money by being a WWE fan. So I got rid of my avatar because I figure twice in 2 days is quite enough.

[Preston_79]

Except that's not true. What I'm saying is, what you, jackson, and many decry as stupid and mock or react to violently has little to do with intelligence and instead is a direct result of being poor in America. Being raised in poverty in a country that so highly values wealth leads to feelings of worthlessness and deep-seated insecurity. When one is raised in a society that measures the worth of a person by how much money they have, those without money feel like they are of little value and are ashamed.



We'll have to disagree there. I've known many poor people. My parents were poor most of my young life, and they never in a million years would spend money on bullshit material items. That's probably in part why they aren't poor anymore.

This is a cultural problem and a family values problem.

[Reigh Kaufman]

Yeah, sorry - managed to read most of - not all of - the posts.

Bubba is clearly joking.

The point was not lost on me, but ****** has been politicizing every post he has made for at least a year - and how this thread has turned from a casual observation on stupidity to a Chomsky/Klein discussion of class/race and how it relates to corporate globalization and consumption is beyond me.

Like I said: I vouch for you - seven years and not one vaguely racist comment tells me that half the responses misunderstood the intention behind your original post.

But, you know, that's the result of a poor education system...

(Who is this post aimed at? Let's find a bandwagon - and JUMP ON IT!)

P.S. I have a malware problem. Anyone have any simple step-by-step instructions I can follow? It's powerful - keeps stopping me removing it by blocking malware removers).

[jackson13]

P.S. I have a malware problem. Anyone have any simple step-by-step instructions I can follow? It's powerful - keeps stopping me removing it by blocking malware removers).

I just had an all out attack on my PC on Sunday. Took me 3 programs and 12 hours to rid it, and even now it still has things going on. I downloaded Avair and ran a scan and left it up to run as my virus defender, then spybot, to rid my pc of spyware, only to have to remove some and not all of it and then had to downloaded A Squared and ran that as well, which got the rest. Now Avair runs and pops up to warn me now when something goes on. Guess thats what I get for not running an anti-virus program for so long. Good luck.

[Reigh Kaufman]

I just had an all out attack on my PC on Sunday. Took me 3 programs and 12 hours to rid it, and even now it still has things going on. I downloaded Avair and ran a scan and left it up to run as my virus defender, then spybot, to rid my pc of spyware, only to have to remove some and not all of it and then had to downloaded A Squared and ran that as well, which got the rest. Now Avair runs and pops up to warn me now when something goes on. Guess thats what I get for not running an anti-virus program for so long. Good luck.

Thanks - I'll give it a shot.

Meanwhile, put your avatar back. Who cares what they think? My avatar is from a kids book.

[jackson13]

Thanks - I'll give it a shot.

Meawhile, put your avatar back. Who cares what they think? My avatar is from a kids book.

Actually, I didnt know you could not have one. I kinda like it this way. Now I'm just a name. Nothing associated with me.

[The Postmaster General]

My comment about WWE had nothing to do with you, jackson13. When in my time here have I done anything close to resembling making fun of someone's avatar? I was originally going to put Nascar tickets, but I wasn't sure they were expensive, and knew WWE was, so I went with what I knew. I don't even know who was on your avatar, and more unlikely would knew if they were WWE or some other wrestling league. I also hadn't read whatever comments you made that were racist, as I only looked at this thread today.

[jackson13]

My comment about WWE had nothing to do with you, jackson13. When in my time here have I done anything close to resembling making fun of someone's avatar? I was originally going to put Nascar tickets, but I wasn't sure they were expensive, and knew WWE was, so I went with what I knew. I don't even know who was on your avatar, and more unlikely would knew if they were WWE or some other wrestling league. I also hadn't read whatever comments you made that were racist, as I only looked at this thread today.

Glad that was cleared up. I had a feeling you meant nothing by it but sometimes you just cant tell. As for my racist comments, there are none. Words were put into my mouth and things were just interpreted as me having said some.

[The Heart Collector]

Maybe it is time for someone to go to these kids and tell them to grow up. It doesn't seem to bother kids in countries like Thailand or India who are just as poor and barely have clean drinking water.
Yeah. Like those kids in Slumdog Millionaire. They seemed chill.

[echo_bravo]

Hilarious and pathetic article all in one.

I feel for some of these guys that have to grow up in really tough enviroments but hey, lifes not fair. And it will never be fair.

And its weird that everyone ganged up on jackson13 and making him out to be racist or something. Bill Cosby has been saying this exact same shit for years.

[The Postmaster General]

I still don't believe the story is serious - I mean, I don't know if this is just a goof or not. Everything is all fucked up. Seth Rogan is really acting like he had the piss taken out of him. Bruno isn't really pulling a prank on eminem. What did you punks do to my Internet?

[The Heart Collector]

Bill Cosby said it too ! AND HE'S BLACK!! THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING.


that and the black friend i have.



.

[BlownCamaro]

Why should I feel bad for low income idiots who can not afford $500 shoes anymore? I have been low income and also mid-income and never once thought about buying a $500 pair of shoes or a $65,000 escalade. Just stupid.

[Preston_79]

WTF is this directed at me?

Man, my head hurts from reading all this shit. (facepalm)

As for Cosby, he has said in his speeches at NAACP events regarding some of these things. "low income families buying 150 dollar sneakers when they should be buying diapers" etc etc.

But then again, Cosby is looked at as an Uncle Tom by a lot of his own people so fuck him:rolleyes:



Only the first two sentences and I was only being sarcastic.

What follows is directed to those so eager to twist things and call out what they think is racist. Does Jackson13 have a history of saying racist shit, no. Let's just take one thread and start making accusations before asking for some clarification.

[Smarmy Douche]

This thread is hilarious.

[Preston_79]

And its weird that everyone ganged up on jackson13 and making him out to be racist or something. Bill Cosby has been saying this exact same shit for years.


Bill Cosby popped in my mind as well. I had no idea Cosby didn't like black people.

Thanks for calling out Jackson13 for the racist he is. Maybe a black guy will read this thread and be filled with hope knowing there are good white people out there pointing out this sort of thing. Who knows you might get some fresh water in your bowl. Good boy.

[echo_bravo]

Bill Cosby popped in my mind as well. I had no idea Cosby didn't like black people.

Thanks for calling out Jackson13 for the racist he is. Maybe a black guy will read this thread and be filled with hope knowing there are good white people out there pointing out this sort of thing. Who knows you might get some fresh water in your bowl. Good boy.

WTF is this directed at me?

Man, my head hurts from reading all this shit. (facepalm)

As for Cosby, he has said in his speeches at NAACP events regarding some of these things. "low income families buying 150 dollar sneakers when they should be buying diapers" etc etc.

But then again, Cosby is looked at as an Uncle Tom by a lot of his own people so fuck him:rolleyes:

[echo_bravo]

Bill Cosby said it too ! AND HE'S BLACK!! THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING.


that and the black friend i have.



.

My mistake dawg

ITS THE WHITE MANS FAULT!!!! ITS ALL THAT FANCY ADVERTISIN THE WHITE MAN DOES AND IT LIKE MANIPULATES ME AND SHIT!

FIGHT THE POWER!

That better?;)

[Natty]

If my words are going to get interpreted into things I never meant or said, then I see no point in continuing to post in this thread.

I don't think you're especially racist, but you do contradict yourself here by saying that people interpret you're words into things you never actually said:

"whoa, jackson13 is a racist scumbag who hates "niggers"".

No-one said this.

they say "I'm poor because I'm black and I get held down by the man because of my skin color"

They didn't say that.



Now, if there is one thing white people cannot stand it's being accused of racism (yeah I realised what I just typed), so maybe people should back off jackson13, its an understandable reaction as they shouldn't have been purchasing such items anyway, even though I think there is no reason to get upset about their complaints as they are 'in poverty'...and wrestling is acceptable too.

Also, Heart Collector, funny stuff (in this thread) :)

[Natty]

Cosby is looked at as an Uncle Tom by a lot of his own people


What do you mean his people?

[The Heart Collector]

My mistake dawg

ITS THE WHITE MANS FAULT!!!! ITS ALL THAT FANCY ADVERTISIN THE WHITE MAN DOES AND IT LIKE MANIPULATES ME AND SHIT!

FIGHT THE POWER!

That better?;)

no, it's not really "better", its actually terribly unfunny, quasi-racist, classist, etc.

[Reigh Kaufman]

no, it's not really "better", its actually terribly unfunny, quasi-racist, classist, etc.

How is it any different from what you posted? You were being heavily ironic, so was he.

Can you post one good reason that you can make this type of post, but he can't?

Ethnicity is no excuse.

[BlownCamaro]

How is it any different from what you posted? You were being heavily ironic, so was he.

Can you post one good reason that you can make this type of post, but he can't?

Ethnicity is no excuse.


THC can do no wrong. He is what other posters should strive to be. Do not question this. That is why he just makes sarcastic comments all day to show us the error of our ways. Duh.

[Preston_79]

WTF is this directed at me?

Man, my head hurts from reading all this shit. (facepalm)

As for Cosby, he has said in his speeches at NAACP events regarding some of these things. "low income families buying 150 dollar sneakers when they should be buying diapers" etc etc.

But then again, Cosby is looked at as an Uncle Tom by a lot of his own people so fuck him:rolleyes:

Only the first two sentences and I was being sarcastic.


Jackson13 has never said anything racist before, so I don't know where people get off reading one thread and insinuating from it that he is one. What ever makes them feel better I guess. Fucking mindless. Let's not ask for clarification, but just jump right to accusations.

[Reigh Kaufman]

THC can do no wrong. He is what other posters should strive to be. Do not question this. That is why he just makes sarcastic comments all day to show us the error of our ways. Duh.

I used to think that. Then he posted "thank God I am not white" in another thread and nobody said a fucking word. Now we have people accusing jackson13 - one of the nicest Schmoes on the boards - of being a racist (do me a fucking favour) and there's a huge hen-pecking party. The point of the thread is abundantly clear, but there is an agenda being tacked on to this thread and it is very, very fucking annoying.

[BlownCamaro]

I used to think that. Then he posted "thank God I am not white" in another thread and nobody said a fucking word. Now we have people accusing jackson13 - one of the nicest Schmoes on the boards - of being a racist (do me a fucking favour) and there's a huge hen-pecking party. The point of the thread is abundantly clear, but there is an agenda being tacked on to this thread and it is very, very fucking annoying.



All whiteys are racist. We should just come to accept it.

[Natty]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You see this is what I'm saying ;)

[outsyder]

Slavery you guys.

[jackson13]

All whiteys are racist. We should just come to accept it.

Sadly, even though I know you are making a joke, this seems to be true in the eyes of other races. We have a Black History month, can you imagine the backlash if there were a White History month? My very own town has a yearly Hispanic Festival. I cant even begin to imagine the Hell that would rain down if we started having a White Festival.

Its really all nothing but double standards, which is why I think I was called out in the first place. I am a white guy, and here I was, seemingly putting black people down by saying they should spend their money differently and more wisely. I would say that to anyone, but since the article focused on "minorities", then it came across as me bashing minorities instead of just stupid people who dont know about things called "budgets" and "thrifty spending".

Not to mention the fact that I used 'gangsters' in the thread title. But I already explained why I did that.

[Smarmy Douche]

Sadly, even though I know you are making a joke, this seems to be true in the eyes of other races. We have a Black History month, can you imagine the backlash if there were a White History month? My very own town has a yearly Hispanic Festival. I cant even begin to imagine the Hell that would rain down if we started having a White Festival.

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131161

See Nima's post.

[someguy]

Sadly, even though I know you are making a joke, this seems to be true in the eyes of other races. We have a Black History month, can you imagine the backlash if there were a White History month? My very own town has a yearly Hispanic Festival. I cant even begin to imagine the Hell that would rain down if we started having a White Festival.

This is not a valid or fair comparison at all. This is what was being pulled by the Republicans during Sotomayor's confirmation hearing over her 'wise Latina' remark, saying that if one of them said the reverse of her statement (a white man can make a better decision than a wise Latina) then they would ruin their careers. This is a purely bullshit comparison people try to make. Black History Month and other events given to minorities are there because they are minorities. White people are not the minority. They have been on top for hundreds of years, beginning to put white people and minorities on the same level is ridiculous. White people do not need a 'White History Month,' in fact we have 11 of those months right now.

Let's just remember that 50 years ago in the States whites and blacks had their own separate classrooms and water fountains. Hell, there's still a town in the south that has a segregated prom. White people going around whining that they can't say nigger or complaining about how the white man isn't getting his due need to shut up and stop living in their fantasy world of whites being oppressed.

[outsyder]

Black History Month and other events given to minorities are there because they are minorities. White people are not the minority. They have been on top for hundreds of years, beginning to put white people and minorities on the same level is ridiculous. White people do not need a 'White History Month,' in fact we have 11 of those months right now.

Without agreeing with jackson's specific opinion on the matter, I don't think it's quite that cut and dry, especially since it wasn't that long ago for example that Irish people (people who by today's standards are easily considered white) were discriminated against fairly heavily in the Western world.

[BlownCamaro]

Let's just remember that 50 years ago in the States whites and blacks had their own separate classrooms and water fountains. Hell, there's still a town in the south that has a segregated prom. White people going around whining that they can't say nigger or complaining about how the white man isn't getting his due need to shut up and stop living in their fantasy world of whites being oppressed.



You need to come live in my town. 80% black and 20% white. See how you feel after a month here.

[jackson13]

Black History Month and other events given to minorities are there because they are minorities. White people are not the minority....


So you're saying they get special treatment?

White people are not the minority. I admit that. But we arent the majority anymore either. In fact I personally feel there is no such thing as 'minority/majority' anymore. We have a black man as our president now, how can they possibly consider themselves to be minor anymore?

[BlownCamaro]

So you're saying they get special treatment?

White people are not the minority. I admit that. But we arent the majority anymore either. In fact I personally feel there is no such thing as 'minority/majority' anymore. We have a black man as our president now, how can they possibly consider themselves to be minor anymore?



He is only half black so the oppression continues!!!!!

[The Heart Collector]

I used to think that. Then he posted "thank God I am not white" in another thread and nobody said a fucking word. Now we have people accusing jackson13 - one of the nicest Schmoes on the boards - of being a racist (do me a fucking favour) and there's a huge hen-pecking party. The point of the thread is abundantly clear, but there is an agenda being tacked on to this thread and it is very, very fucking annoying.

The reason no one said a word is because it was clearly a jokey remark. I often post those. But so what? I don't really have a problem saying that I'm glad I'm not an American/first world white person, because judging from my experience with American/first world white men, that type of upbringing is a hindrance to understanding the world and its social/political/economic relationships. That applies to American/first world minorities too, but to a much lesser extent.

An example of that hindrance is this thread and its opinions.

I don't really care if Jackson13 is nice, that doesn't mean people shouldn't call him out on things that are maybe inappropriate. If anything, it is a good thing. Since he is a nice person, he will learn a good lesson about how behaviors and situations involving race can often be interpreted.

You talk about the point of this thread being hijacked by some agenda. What is the point of this thread? The only point I see to this thread is to make fun of urban poor blacks because they have the audacity to desire material possessions. That's the point of the thread, from what I can tell. Nevermind that the recession has affected consumers in a wide variety of industries, many of which are strictly upper-class and based on luxury goods, but no. Since this is "bling" i.e. "urban" i.e. "black" culture, it's a fair target for repeated insults and denigration.

Then what I see are a bunch of people pontificating about what poor people should desire and what they shouldn't. How dare these fucking kids actually desire anything, after all. They're poor. They should spend every dollar they have on bootstrapping and subsistence. Poor people shouldn't actually do or get anything they want, they should dedicate all their purchases to what Joblo.com schmoes consider socially acceptable or whatever. That's the general attitude here. All those goods are only for those with the money, anyone else who desires them and tries to get them is "wrong" and their culture is "fucked up" or whatever. That is the message here. I don't know if that was the OP's message, but it was certainly what the thread turned into fairly quickly.

On the other hand, the majority of you spend grotesque amounts of money on movie-related goods, such as tickets, dvds, home theaters, etc. Do you want me to make a thread in which I tell all of you to stop spending your money on that, to see what the gigantic fucking outrage will be because how dare I tell anyone what to spend their money on?

Jackson, i'm sorry man, but your opinions about race are just terrible. White History Month? Really? That's what you're complaining about?

I don't think you get it. The reason there is a Black History Month is because it is considered necessary to spend a month talking about Black History, for a change. The change is because the rest of the time is dedicated to talking about White History. That is what most American History is. The fact that it is not labelled White History Year is irrelevant, much like it is irrelevant whether Black History Month is labeled that way or not. I mean really. What a dumb fucking point that is. What would "White History Month" be? Would it actually look any different than current history?

I'm sorry, but that kind of poisonous attitude always needs to be called out. I was more annoyed at the other posts on the thread and not Jackson's, but White History Month? Fucking christ almighty.

[BlownCamaro]

For a race that wants equality you sure dont want the white man to have anything. Maybe I see things differently because of where I live and I am the minority but schools teach a good balance of white and black history here. We hear more about George Washington Carver than we do George Washington. Maybe because 90% of my teachers were black, this is why? I do not know but if you scream equality you have to get rid of bullshit like BET and Black History Month and the NAACP. Those things promote more racism and hatred than some redneck in a white hood any day. Then again I guess because of slavery and opression we as a white race should just bend over and get what is coming to us because after all, it was some ancient relative of mine who owned a slave and that means I am guilty as well for his crimes. So I must be punished and be forced to put up with speeches about equality that somehow leave out the equality for anyone except the black man.



*Quick edit!*

Forgot to mention that most of my black teachers thought black history month was a joke and most never celebrated it in anyway. I had maybe 2 social studies teachers who went out of their way to do anything for BHM. It is ridiculous and insulting to whites and blacks.

[Cop No. 633]

Christ... you go on a vacation for a week and you come back to this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/parenting/images/300/baby_crying_closeup.jpg

Why can't we have a White History Month?! Why can't I hear about white accomplishments?! Waaah! Somebody obviously never took a high school American history class.

Honestly, if you don't understand why there's a Black History Month and are angry about it, you probably have a lot of pent of aggression that's unsubstantiated. Get angry for better reasons man. This thread really went down the shitter.

If you're saying the debt owed to black people is "all good now" simply because Obama is President, you really need to go to a college sociology course or a race relations course and really get out of your shell.

Education can not be stressed enough here.

[The Heart Collector]

You need to come live in my town. 80% black and 20% white. See how you feel after a month here.

So you're saying it's perfectly ok for black people to hold reprehensible opinions (much like you hold reprehensible opinions) as long as they're in an environment that is oppressive, right? Awesome. Thanks for justifying it, couldn't have done it better myself.

[The Heart Collector]

We have a black man as our president now, how can they possibly consider themselves to be minor anymore?

Have you paid attention to politics pre and post election?

Officials in the Republican Party constantly insult Barack Obama in racial terms. His wife has been likened to a simian. He's been called a "Magic Negro". Pictures of him with bones going through his nose are distributed by email. Officials in foreign governments such as Honduras refer to him as a plantation negro, for fuck's sake. What kind of fantasy world do you live in where Barack Obama ended racism?

[jackson13]

I don't really care if Jackson13 is nice, that doesn't mean people shouldn't call him out on things that are maybe inappropriate. If anything, it is a good thing. Since he is a nice person, he will learn a good lesson about how behaviors and situations involving race can often be interpreted.

You talk about the point of this thread being hijacked by some agenda. What is the point of this thread? The only point I see to this thread is to make fun of urban poor blacks because they have the audacity to desire material possessions. That's the point of the thread, from what I can tell. Nevermind that the recession has affected consumers in a wide variety of industries, many of which are strictly upper-class and based on luxury goods, but no. Since this is "bling" i.e. "urban" i.e. "black" culture, it's a fair target for repeated insults and denigration.

Then what I see are a bunch of people pontificating about what poor people should desire and what they shouldn't. How dare these fucking kids actually desire anything, after all. They're poor. They should spend every dollar they have on bootstrapping and subsistence. Poor people shouldn't actually do or get anything they want, they should dedicate all their purchases to what Joblo.com schmoes consider socially acceptable or whatever. That's the general attitude here. All those goods are only for those with the money, anyone else who desires them and tries to get them is "wrong" and their culture is "fucked up" or whatever. That is the message here. I don't know if that was the OP's message, but it was certainly what the thread turned into fairly quickly.

On the other hand, the majority of you spend grotesque amounts of money on movie-related goods, such as tickets, dvds, home theaters, etc. Do you want me to make a thread in which I tell all of you to stop spending your money on that, to see what the gigantic fucking outrage will be because how dare I tell anyone what to spend their money on?

Jackson, i'm sorry man, but your opinions about race are just terrible. White History Month? Really? That's what you're complaining about?

I don't think you get it. The reason there is a Black History Month is because it is considered necessary to spend a month talking about Black History, for a change. The change is because the rest of the time is dedicated to talking about White History. That is what most American History is. The fact that it is not labelled White History Year is irrelevant, much like it is irrelevant whether Black History Month is labeled that way or not. I mean really. What a dumb fucking point that is. What would "White History Month" be? Would it actually look any different than current history?

I'm sorry, but that kind of poisonous attitude always needs to be called out. I was more annoyed at the other posts on the thread and not Jackson's, but White History Month? Fucking christ almighty.


To be fair, I wasn't saying I WANT a white history month. I was just asking why there is none. I know how ridiculous of a thing it is, which is why I would never suggest it.

Look, my point in creating this thread absolutely was not to start a Race War. I simply wanted to share and point out how ridiculous I think it is that people who don't have a very good income are complaining that they cant afford expensive things. It just makes no sense to me. It's like a "fucking duh" type thing. I'm not a poor person, although I'm not rich either, but I don't, and would not, complain about not being able to buy expensive things. Its kind of a common sense thing. Like "oh, I don't have much money, that means I cant buy that, I either have to save up or get a better paying job, or, better yet, buy something cheaper."

[BlownCamaro]

If you're saying the debt owed to black people is "all good now" simply because Obama is President


Jews and Scotts were also slaves but you never hear them asking for special months celebrating this? Or for reparations from the US Goverment. Why is it that only blacks deserve rewards for their suffering?

[Shinigami]

Jackson13:
^The article had interviews of people commenting on this change of financial tides. I don't remember anyone making a big fuss that they could no longer afford designer names.

[The Heart Collector]

FI do not know but if you scream equality you have to get rid of bullshit like BET and Black History Month and the NAACP. Those things promote more racism and hatred than some redneck in a white hood any day.

BET, the NAACP, and Black History Month do not promote more hatred and racism than the Ku Klux Klan. I'm sorry, but that is just a completely ridiculous statement completely disconnected from reality. Those institutions do not promote racism. The NAACP, BET, and Black History Month do not terrorize and kill white people. What happens is you, personally, are threatened by blacks, and are projecting your fears onto them. But that does not mean they are racist institutions.

This is what you actually believe. You believe the NAACP is more dangerous than actual murderous white men. And that white hoods are some funny thing or something. Lol look at that redneck in a whtie hood. HILARIOUS.

[BlownCamaro]

So you're saying it's perfectly ok for black people to hold reprehensible opinions (much like you hold reprehensible opinions) as long as they're in an environment that is oppressive, right? Awesome. Thanks for justifying it, couldn't have done it better myself.

No my point was that blacks are not really the minority they used to be and maybe they should stop whining about the white man when many of their problems are created by their own. Crime in this town is at an ALL TIME HIGH and this is affecting more blacks than whites. The blacks and whites in this town are both equally tired of it. Go to walb.com and check out some of the news videos of crimes in this area and the reactions after. The white man is not the burden holding the black man back. It is this "we are owed something" mentality that is the problem and people like you who shout racism as an excuse to argue anything you disagree with.

[someguy]

I do not know but if you scream equality you have to get rid of bullshit like BET and Black History Month and the NAACP. Those things promote more racism and hatred than some redneck in a white hood any day.

Haha remember when the BET blew up those white children in a church good times good times

[BlownCamaro]

BET, the NAACP, and Black History Month do not promote more hatred and racism than the Ku Klux Klan. I'm sorry, but that is just a completely ridiculous statement completely disconnected from reality. Those institutions do not promote racism. The NAACP, BET, and Black History Month do not terrorize and kill white people. What happens is you, personally, are threatened by blacks, and are projecting your fears onto them. But that does not mean they are racist institutions.


This is coming from a black man (assuming since you are glad not to be white). As a white person, it is insulting to have such "institutions" that seem to promote themselves as blacks only. I see this as reverse racism and it is, plain and simple.

And seriously projecting fears? How about I have an understanding that you do not seem to grasp.

I know you feel that all whites are the devil and blacks are the saviors of society but this is not the truth. Obviously I am racist because I argue against BHM and BET. I guess Morgan Freeman, Cosby, Whoopi Goldberg, and others are self hating blacks then? They have all shared opinions against crap like that.

[Smarmy Douche]

Did I ever mention how the term "reverse racism" can go suck a dick?

[BlownCamaro]

Haha remember when the BET blew up those white children in a church good times good times



Yes because the KKK are still doing that right? All you hear from the KKK is the occasional rally. BET spreads more reverse racism now due to its NATIONAL audience than a few rednecks at a rally in hicksville, nowheretown.

Again, let go of the past.

[The Heart Collector]

Jews and Scotts were also slaves but you never hear them asking for special months celebrating this? Or for reparations from the US Goverment. Why is it that only blacks deserve rewards for their suffering?

Who has stated that only blacks deserve rewards for their suffering? Who in this thread has stated that? how does that follow from your original point, which is that "Jews and Scotts were also slaves, but you never hear them asking for special months celebrating this?". It doesn't follow at all. Anyway, what a joke of a statement. Jews get reparations from the Germans because of the Holocaust.

[BlownCamaro]

Did I ever mention how the term "reverse racism" can go suck a dick?



Well I should have just said racism but reverse racism seems to be all the rage these days. Sorry.

[BlownCamaro]

Who has stated that only blacks deserve rewards for their suffering? Who in this thread has stated that? how does that follow from your original point, which is that "Jews and Scotts were also slaves, but you never hear them asking for special months celebrating this?". It doesn't follow at all. Anyway, what a joke of a statement. Jews get reparations from the Germans because of the Holocaust.




Comparing the holocaust to slavery is a tad off. Blacks were slaves and yes blacks were killed during slavery but they were not rounded up by the thousands and gassed to death.

[echo_bravo]

no, it's not really "better", its actually terribly unfunny, quasi-racist, classist, etc.

Man, for someone who is "edgy" as yourself, you sure are pretty sensitive sometimes.;)

This thread got completely sidetracked but what else is new. I have no clue how we got to talking about White History Month or shit like that but if the mods want to close it, more power to them!

Jackson13 probably shouldnt of said "gangster" in the thread title. That is clear cause it pissed some people off.

As for these kids in the article complaining that they cant afford name brand stuff, it is too bad BUT hey, life is fuckin unfair. SOrry, but that is the sad truth.
In a perfect world , it would be great if everyone could live equally and purchase anything they desired but thats just not the case. It will never happen in this lifetime.

[BlownCamaro]

This thread got completely sidetracked but what else is new.

Agreed. I am done debating this. Back to the issue that inner city youths can no longer afford $500 shoes.

[Shinigami]

Nonissues are creeping into the conversation. No post in this thread says or suggests that white people are responsible for every problem in the black community, or that blacks shouldn't have to take personal responsibility. Nobody has called you a racist purely for having issue with these action groups. Nobody has said that blacks are the saviors of humanity and whites are devils.


Edit: holy shit like eight people posted before I managed to post mine. If you're done blowncamaro, don't let me egg you on.

[The Heart Collector]

This is coming from a black man (assuming since you are glad not to be white). As a white person, it is insulting to have such "institutions" that seem to promote themselves as blacks only. I see this as reverse racism and it is, plain and simple.

And seriously projecting fears? How about I have an understanding that you do not seem to grasp.

I don't even know what this means. Are you telling me that you think I'm black, and at the same time telling me that you have an understanding of black people and the race experience in America that I, as a black man, don't have?

I don't really care that you think the NAACP is racist. It has existed for more than one hundred years, it was founded at a time when black people were regularly lynched and slavery was hardly a distant memory. It has had a long history of fighting against segregation, Jim Crow laws, and all sorts of abhorrent injustices. It is one of the greatest institutions in American history and for its faults, it should be cherished. They've done more for America than any of us could ever hope for. If you want to call them racists and reveal yourself as what you truly are, then go for it.

[someguy]

Yes because the KKK are still doing that right? All you hear from the KKK is the occasional rally. BET spreads more reverse racism now due to its NATIONAL audience than a few rednecks at a rally in hicksville, nowheretown.

Again, let go of the past.

You just said that, in reference to black children being brutally murdered for the colour of their skin (and it seems to be suggested that this is also in reference to the lynchings and other horrible crimes committed against black people during that time), people should 'let go of the past.' Maybe it's just me but that's a horrible thing to say.

[Cop No. 633]

Jews and Scotts were also slaves but you never hear them asking for special months celebrating this? Or for reparations from the US Goverment. Why is it that only blacks deserve rewards for their suffering?

I can't believe I have to explain this, but here goes. Jews were persecuted in Europe. They were given a country (Israel). That IS reparations. I don't know how you can argue that it's not. The Scots were persecuted in the United Kingdom, they were allowed to keep their country... but they're still a part of parliament. But I'm willing to bet they get shit for being Scottish for no good reason. I still here jokes degrading the Irish and this is in America.

As for African-Americans, their slavery was instituted by the US government and it's upper class. They were enslaved since the country was founded to the end of the Civil War. Then they weren't even given any rights until 1964. Even then, all they got was, "Here you go, fuckers... have at it!"

They were never given anything until affirmative action, which was only instituted because it was hard for white Americans to even give minorities a chance in college since they had a huge advantage of being able to go actually go for a hundred years.

Black people were never given an apology from the government for always supporting institutional racism. They were never given reparations, which they should have at the end of the Civil War. They created so much wealth for the slave owning families that it's a joke they were given absolutely nothing except the "freedom" to sweep another man's store.

So why is Black History Month taught? It's to help African-Americans feel included in this country which enslaved them and to this day oppress them with language and economic barriers. It's also to remind them of their culture, which is a lot younger than any other culture in this country. It had to be created from scratch because their roots were erased when they were slaves. It's also a half-assed kind of apology to them because the government never gave them anything tangible after they were slaves. So now they get a "month" to be talked about by history teachers.

It's also remind people like you and other white Americans that you of the damage that has been done to African-Americans. You may cry and complain that it wasn't "you" but the point is to realize that white people have had an incredible privilege over many other people simply because of the color of their skin. That kind of privilege still affects minorities to this day even on a psychological level, which is displayed in the article this was originally about. If that's too much for people to handle, then people clearly have a lot of growing up to do in this country.

[The Heart Collector]

Comparing the holocaust to slavery is a tad off. Blacks were slaves and yes blacks were killed during slavery but they were not rounded up by the thousands and gassed to death.

So only Jews are deserving of financial rewards for their suffering? What are you talking about now?

Let's say The Holocaust is worse than slavery by a factor of two. Alright. Have black people received half the reparations that Holocaust survivors have received?

[Preston_79]

The only point I see to this thread is to make fun of urban poor blacks because they have the audacity to desire material possessions. That's the point of the thread, from what I can tell. Nevermind that the recession has affected consumers in a wide variety of industries, many of which are strictly upper-class and based on luxury goods, but no. Since this is "bling" i.e. "urban" i.e. "black" culture, it's a fair target for repeated insults and denigration.

Then what I see are a bunch of people pontificating about what poor people should desire and what they shouldn't. How dare these fucking kids actually desire anything, after all. They're poor. They should spend every dollar they have on bootstrapping and subsistence. Poor people shouldn't actually do or get anything they want, they should dedicate all their purchases to what Joblo.com schmoes consider socially acceptable or whatever. That's the general attitude here. All those goods are only for those with the money, anyone else who desires them and tries to get them is "wrong" and their culture is "fucked up" or whatever. That is the message here. I don't know if that was the OP's message, but it was certainly what the thread turned into fairly quickly.


You don't think this article would have gotten equal treatment if the subjects were white? I think it's you who's making the color of their skin an issue. There are plenty of poor white people who place too much value on possessions. It's not Jackson's fault the article has a picture of a poor black kid and not white. They interviewed poor blacks for the article, not poor whites. Maybe they should have been politically correct and interviewed a materialistic poor person from every racial demographic?

These people aren't getting mocked because they're poor, and certainly not for being black. The article is hilarious because while on one hand explaining their trouble of not being able to afford luxury items, they also drop bombs that they live at home with their parents, raising an 8 year old the father had when he was 12.

Yes, they're black. Time to get over it.

It's as ridiculous as the homeless guy who spends his only money on alcohol even though he starving.

[Cop No. 633]

You don't think this article would have gotten equal treatment if the subjects were white? I think it's you who's making the color of their skin an issue. There are plenty of poor white people who place too much value on possessions. It's not Jackson's fault the article has a picture of a poor black kid and not white. They interviewed poor blacks for the article, not poor whites. Maybe they should have been politically correct and interviewed a materialistic poor person from every racial demographic?

These people aren't getting mocked because they're poor, and certainly not for being black. The article is hilarious because while on one hand explaining their trouble of not being able to afford luxury items, they also drop bombs that they live at home with their parents, raising an 8 year old the father had when he was 12.

Yes, they're black. Time to get over it.

It's a little too late to go back to this. Have you seen the insane ramblings that have been posted? This thread isn't about the article anymore but has become a showcase for those at Joblo.com who really have major problems.

It's insane how skin color creates such a controversy on this site. People preach about others needng to move on but this thread clearly shows that we haven't moved on at all.

[The Heart Collector]

You don't think this article would have gotten equal treatment if the subjects were white? I think it's you who's making the color of their skin an issue. There are plenty of poor white people who place too much value on possessions. It's not Jackson's fault the article has a picture of a poor black kid and not white. They interviewed poor blacks for the article, not poor whites. Maybe they should have been politically correct and interviewed a materialistic poor person from every racial demographic?

These people aren't getting mocked because they're poor, and certainly not for being black. The article is hilarious because while on one hand explaining their trouble of not being able to afford luxury items, they also drop bombs that they live at home with their parents, raising an 8 year old the father had when he was 12.

Yes, they're black. Time to get over it.

It's as ridiculous as the homeless guy who spends his only money on alcohol even though he starving.
I thought this thread couldn't get any worse. But as always, I was wrong. Now someone's berating the homeless for how they chose to conduct themselves! Classy.

[Preston_79]

I don't know what the reaction would have been. What I do know is that my reaction wouldn't be to judge what poor people do because I have not lived my life on their shoes and some of the problems they face are so different from anything I've experienced that it would be a massively horrible thing to do to presume I understand them and then pass judgment.

Such as, for example, your judgment of how homeless people should conduct themselves. That's a really classy sentence, by the way. Good job. I thought this thread couldn't get any worse, but shockingly, it can. Someone actually decided to berate the homeless now.

This is bad decision making, and very poor values on display in this article. See I have been poor, so I do know what it's like. I'm not going to withhold my opinion. I don't need to know anything else about them to say it's fucking stupid to spend money on things you don't need when you aren't even sheltering your own kid without Mom's help.

You think Jackson's opinions on race are terrible. You started in on him before he even mentioned race.

[Pentangeli]

We all bleed red, and we all sneeze green.

All ethnic groups have shit in their past. But not every individual of the ethnic groups has endured that shit. If shit didn't happen to you as an individual, it isn't your battle.

We all shit black (or brown), and we all piss clear grey (or sometimes orange).

All ethnic groups have good and bad people. The battle shouldn't pertain to colour. Who you side with should be down to quality of character.

We all cum white, and we all live under the big blue sky.

That's all i'm saying.

[QUENTIN]

I can't believe I have to explain this, but here goes.

Yeah, for one thing I never said anything like "jackson hates niggers" or anything that outlandish. I've also seen posts of his since he started here, I don't think he hates black people.

He did, however, call students using a community youth program to obtain their GED and working or recently laid off as a result of the recession "gangsters." Do I think he meant any ill-will with this? No, but it's indicative of a worldview that embraces black stereotypes. Beyond this, and here's what seems to get lost in the mix with his defenders: He said he wanted to beat three kids with a stick because they told a reporter that they can't afford nice things anymore. Not sure what malware did and didn't block, but where I come from that's rather absurd, unprovoked, misdirected hostility. But I'm the "politicized" asshole for criticizing that apparently.

Look, I don't think jackson's a bad guy. What I do think, what he's demonstrated repeatedly here as have many others (BlownCamaro much more egregiously than anyone else) is a very pervasive mindset among middle-class white men that, basicallly, poor black people are poor because they are either stupid, irresponsible, lazy, or some combination of the three. That the conditions of the inner city and that destitute environment is the fault of black people and if only they were smarter, more responsible, and worked harder everything would be hunky dory and instead of going to jail or working menial jobs to get by, the ghetto would provide the next generation of corporate CEOs.

This is a blatantly sheltered and inane worldview that is detached from reality. It has no basis in the real world, it is instead based on ignorance and old racist talking points that now use more euphemistic language to say the same things: "Blacks can't get their act together," "Why are the all on welfare?", "Slavery was so long ago, GET OVER IT!!!!", and the new standard, "Barack Obama is president, racism is obviously over." All of this is mixed up with this false sense of white victimhood, like things are unfair for us now because there's a Black History Month and college scholarships for minorities. This ignores the rather obvious and already stated point that everything else is a celebration of white history, college legacy admissions, and the advantages of better primary schools...it ignores the fact of white American privilege. White privilege doesn't mean you get a Ferrari just for being white, it means are much more likely to come from a safe neighborhood and family that hasn't been poor and poorly educated for 5 generations, black disadvantage doesn't mean prospective employers chase them out of an office with a pitchfork, it means they aren't afforded many of the opportunities others take for granted. Things like BHM or the NAACP only exist to help offset the existing conditions of black disadvantage and marginalization.

There's a term for this, White Racial Reasoning, and a good scholarly article on it here:
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/9/3/5/p109355_index.html#get_document

Many of the behaviors associated with this pervasive and ignorant mindset have been demonstrated in this thread:


Essays and studies on whiteness point out that whites possess the ability to be unaware of
their privilege in the world (Bonilla-Silva 2001, p. 7; Frankenberg 2001, p. 76, 81, 2000, p. 447; Dyer 2000, p. 541; Montag 1997, p. 284). This absence of awareness developed through a purposeful historical universalization of whiteness, by which, in this case, being human is equated with being white (Bonilla-Silva 2001, p. 189; Frankenberg 2001, 73, 75, 76; Dyer 2000, p. 539; Feagin 2000, p. 177; Montag 1997, p. 285; Feagin and Vera 1995, p. 139). Although whites’ conceptions about race may not be consciously white, this allows the racialized Other to speak only for their race while it allows whites, utilizing color coded and colorblind constructs, to speak for the whole of humanity (Bonilla-Silva 2001, p. 140-142; Dyer 2000, p. 539). This ethnocentrism and restriction on others’ humanness is the essence of white racial reasoning (WRR): the underlying logic informing the progressively reductionist way white (males) think about race. To reiterate, the term refers to the situational modes of reasoning whites engage in based on the normalized nature of historical racism to continue that normalization and perpetuate privilege.

* In fact, many whites want to believe that race no longer matters (Doane 2003;
Mckinney and Feagin 2003). Thus, white people are likely to hide their race biases behind such color coded and colorblind terms as family values, inner cities, crime, culture of dependency, and bloated government

* Acknowledging institutional racism while still blaming blacks allows whites to
avail themselves as nonracist while recreating the racist ideology of this country under an egalitarian veil.

And, as I said from the outset and re-iterated, the desire for material possessions beyond one's means among the institutionally poor is a well-documented and well-understood psychological/cultural phenomenon. Sociologists and psychologists understand it's roots and it makes a lot of sense. It's reductive and simplistic to simply call this "stupid" and I think anger directed at the destitute for wanting nice things is misplaced and unfounded. And here's the kicker on this subject: The article that instigated this conversation says this too, explains it just as I explained it, and this was somehow ignored.

For those with few opportunities to claim advantage or status, the boost that comes with wearing a sought-after brand can take on additional meaning.

"They feel like their society looks down on them," Alford said. "Sometimes some of these status symbols are just a way of saying, 'Hey, look! Here I am. See who I am?'"

Also, and importantly, in that article none of the interview subjects complain, whine, or ask for sympathy because they can't afford the nicer things they used to. In fact, each of them explains how they are now doing precisely what all these angry, blaming white guys are saying they should: Namely, not spending any unnecessary money on themselves but instead saving and taking care of necessities that are pretty noble like a 20 year old trying to send his 18-year-old sister to college or another helping support his kid and mother.

They are making responsible decisions, not whining and asking for sympathy, that's key.

"We have to focus our money on what's most important right now — whether that's taking care of bills, or taking care of our kids, or taking care of the rent."...It's a sentiment echoed at youth centers around the country

So to read this straight-forward article, in which no one complains or whines about not being able to buy things they can't afford but instead merely says they have to save now and their priorities are completely appropriate, important necessities and a professor explains the root cause of spending beyond one's means, and come away angry, incredulous, and threatening violence to me indicates a warped worldview and some deep-seated, irrational resentment that subsequent posts only exacerbate.

Maybe this argument, which draws on the actual source article itself and comprehensive analyses of socio-cultural phenomenons can be similarly dismissed as me "blaming The Man" though.

[Jon Lyrik]

Alright, so who in here grew up in a place that was remotely like a ghetto? Drug-running, prostitution, largely and hopelessly broken families. A homicide here and there. I don't mean you were a kid when your family went on food stamps for some time and you still could walk outside feeling safe.

...

...

Alright. I did. Well, it was split fairly evenly between whites, Hispanics and blacks, but it had all the other makings.

[countchocula]

I think that BET and the NAACP exist because America is still a racist country. We've come a long way, no doubt, but we have a long way to go.

Basically, everyone in this thread is guilty of making generalizations. I'm not even sure what you guys are debating at this point.

You can't fault a KID for wanting nice things. He hasn't reached the point in his life where he realizes that material possessions aren't the most important thing in the world. When I was a teenager, I wanted a ton of useless shit that I thought was cool. And so did all of you.

[BakeTheMooCow]

I can't believe this descended into 'Why can't whites get a White History Month?' like some fucking email forward from 1997.

If this thread has morphed into a thread about race, so be it.

But don't say stuff like "I'm done with this thread", "I'm outta here..", etc

If you can't handle the subject, leave. No need to create drama while you're doing so.

[Tweek]

Oh, good lord this thread! After this post is done I'm going to drop kick a small animal.

Since when do all minorities think the worst of Caucasian people? I like how some of these comments are directed at black people in general. "For a race that wants equality you sure dont want the white man to have anything." Sorry, no one gets to speak for me. :)


Did I ever mention how the term "reverse racism" can go suck a dick?

I don't know, but I certainly agree. It's a ridiculous term.




We all shit black (or brown), and we all piss clear grey (or sometimes orange).

Not me. Mine's a dark yellow that smells funny. Does that mean I have to drink more water?

Alright, so who in here grew up in a place that was remotely like a ghetto? Drug-running, prostitution, largely and hopelessly broken families. A homicide here and there. I don't mean you were a kid when your family went on food stamps for some time and you still could walk outside feeling safe.


I did! The neighborhood got a lot better since so...that's good.

[Pentangeli]

Not me. Mine's a dark yellow that smells funny. Does that mean I have to drink more water?

I'm not sure, one colour means you need more water, and another colour means you need less water. But I am sure that smelling it isn't a good idea. Or maybe your sense of smell is better than mine, meaning you wouldn't need to get too close. I can never tell with mine, as my nose is always blocked from hay fever. I piss pollen.

[jackson13]

Since this has officially turned into a race thread now, I'm curious as to everyone's opinions on the Harvard professor that was just arrested and who is now officially playing the race card in the news?

I've read all about the story and even read the police report. A woman, who didnt live nearby but was in the area, witnessed him "jimmy" a door open and run inside. She didnt know he lived there and thought he was robbing the place. The cops showed up and before they even got to the reason they were there, the man was yelling at them about "do you even know who I am". The cop asked him to show I.D., to prove he lived there (a very simple and appropriate thing to do) and the man refused, screaming he was being persecuted because he was black. The officer called for backup, and the man lost it and started saying things like "I'll make you pay for this". When the backup arrived, he started demanding names and badge numbers of the officers, whilst still refusing to provide I.D. He also ran outside and started screaming at cops and bystanders, thus making a public nuisance of himself, at which point he was arrested.

Now he is going on the news, and getting help from attention whores like Al Sharpton, demanding an apology from the arresting officer and crying that it was all because he is a black man.

Bullshit. He was arrested because he refused to cooperate with police and then made a public spectacle of himself. All the cop was trying to do was to get him to prove he lived there, since the cop didnt know for sure and neither did the woman who called the cops in the first place. Had the man simply done that, everything would've been over and it wouldnt be a big story on the news like I just saw it reported on on CBS. Our President actually said the police acted stupidly in the case of what happened but I feel they acted 100% appropriately and that this man is now using the fact that he is black to try to not only gain attention but get some form of "justice" that, quite frankly, he doesnt deserve.

Thoughts?

[The Postmaster General]

"Hello, I'm Ted Turner. Did you know that BET oppresses white people?"

http://www.savebrokefolks.com/db1/00054/savebrokefolks.com/_uimages/BestTTurnerE.jpg

[Tweek]

I'm not sure, one colour means you need more water, and another colour means you need less water. But I am sure that smelling it isn't a good idea. Or maybe your sense of smell is better than mine, meaning you wouldn't need to get too close. I can never tell with mine, as my nose is always blocked from hay fever. I piss pollen.

I have a great sense of smell so I can't help but get a whiff of things even if I don't want to.

Since this has officially turned into a race thread now, I'm curious as to everyone's opinions on the Harvard professor that was just arrested and who is now officially playing the race card in the news?

I've read all about the story and even read the police report. A woman, who didnt live nearby but was in the area, witnessed him "jimmy" a door open and run inside. She didnt know he lived there and thought he was robbing the place. The cops showed up and before they even got to the reason they were there, the man was yelling at them about "do you even know who I am". The cop asked him to show I.D., to prove he lived there (a very simple and appropriate thing to do) and the man refused, screaming he was being persecuted because he was black. The officer called for backup, and the man lost it and started saying things like "I'll make you pay for this". When the backup arrived, he started demanding names and badge numbers of the officers, whilst still refusing to provide I.D. He also ran outside and started screaming at cops and bystanders, thus making a public nuisance of himself, at which point he was arrested.

Now he is going on the news, and getting help from attention whores like Al Sharpton, demanding an apology from the arresting officer and crying that it was all because he is a black man.

Bullshit. He was arrested because he refused to cooperate with police and then made a public spectacle of himself. All the cop was trying to do was to get him to prove he lived there, since the cop didnt know for sure and neither did the woman who called the cops in the first place. Had the man simply done that, everything would've been over and it wouldnt be a big story on the news like I just saw it reported on on CBS. Our President actually said the police acted stupidly in the case of what happened but I feel they acted 100% appropriately and that this man is now using the fact that he is black to try to not only gain attention but get some form of "justice" that, quite frankly, he doesnt deserve.

Thoughts?

I wasn't there so I couldn't know for sure. That seems like awful conduct for a Harvard professor. But then again, there are 'average' people who cry racism at the drop of a hat.

[Heisenberg]

Totally off topic, but Tweek- If your peepee is very yellow, it means you are not taking enough liquids in.

Cannot believe I just wrote that.

[The Postmaster General]

I thought they were talking about snot because I started skimming the fluid discussion.

You're right about very yellow. Dark amber means Chuck Norris kicked you in the gut.

[BakeTheMooCow]

Since this has officially turned into a race thread now, I'm curious as to everyone's opinions on the Harvard professor that was just arrested and who is now officially playing the race card in the news?

I've read all about the story and even read the police report. A woman, who didnt live nearby but was in the area, witnessed him "jimmy" a door open and run inside. She didnt know he lived there and thought he was robbing the place. The cops showed up and before they even got to the reason they were there, the man was yelling at them about "do you even know who I am". The cop asked him to show I.D., to prove he lived there (a very simple and appropriate thing to do) and the man refused, screaming he was being persecuted because he was black. The officer called for backup, and the man lost it and started saying things like "I'll make you pay for this". When the backup arrived, he started demanding names and badge numbers of the officers, whilst still refusing to provide I.D. He also ran outside and started screaming at cops and bystanders, thus making a public nuisance of himself, at which point he was arrested.

Now he is going on the news, and getting help from attention whores like Al Sharpton, demanding an apology from the arresting officer and crying that it was all because he is a black man.

Bullshit. He was arrested because he refused to cooperate with police and then made a public spectacle of himself. All the cop was trying to do was to get him to prove he lived there, since the cop didnt know for sure and neither did the woman who called the cops in the first place. Had the man simply done that, everything would've been over and it wouldnt be a big story on the news like I just saw it reported on on CBS. Our President actually said the police acted stupidly in the case of what happened but I feel they acted 100% appropriately and that this man is now using the fact that he is black to try to not only gain attention but get some form of "justice" that, quite frankly, he doesnt deserve.

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that I don't believe a second of the police report. I don't believe Skip Gates acted that way. If he did get angry, I don't blame him for having police officers in his home questioning why he's there. Arresting someone for that is ridiculous.

HE WAS BEING UPPITY.

It should be fun for them to deal with Charles Ogletree and the rest of Harvard Law.

[jackson13]

If he did get angry, I don't blame him for having police officers in his home questioning why he's there. Arresting someone for that is ridiculous.

I'd be angry too if they came to my home and did that, but I would also provide I.D. like asked and not say things like "do you even know who I am" and "I'll make you pay for this" to a fucking police officer.

I also wouldn't run outside and start screaming at more cops and innocent bystanders then start yelling that I was being treated the way I was because I was white (I'm pretending to reverse it here and say its a black cop doing it to me).

The police had every right to arrest him, and they did. Good on them.

[someguy]

I'd just like to point out that jackson's story is NOT the full truth of what happened because there's another version out there. From what I've read Gates actually DID provide his ID and driver's licence to the police officer to prove he lived there. The cop started to leave, but Gates wanted the police officer to identify himself and the cop just ignored him. That's when he started getting angry.

[Tweek]

Was it the police that said he screaming at bystanders or was it a witness?

[jackson13]

I'd just like to point out that jackson's story is NOT the full truth of what happened because there's another version out there. From what I've read Gates actually DID provide his ID and driver's licence to the police officer to prove he lived there. The cop started to leave, but Gates wanted the police officer to identify himself and the cop just ignored him. That's when he started getting angry.

Everything I typed was off of the official police report that was filed. That's all I'm saying. And of course the perp would be saying the complete opposite of the police report, because like I said he is playing the race card and saying all of it only happened because he is black.

[jackson13]

This is what I was referring to:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art4/0723092gates1.gif

page 2:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art4/0723092gates2.gif

[echo_bravo]

This thread has inspired me to go out and rent White Man's Burden starring John Travolta. I havent seen it since it first came out back in the mid-90s

[Smarmy Douche]

The police lie?

Never!

[Bourne101]

I'd just like to point out that jackson's story is NOT the full truth of what happened because there's another version out there. From what I've read Gates actually DID provide his ID and driver's licence to the police officer to prove he lived there. The cop started to leave, but Gates wanted the police officer to identify himself and the cop just ignored him. That's when he started getting angry.

How do you know it's not the full truth? Because there is another version to the story, this version all the sudden can't be the truth? One version is true, one version is not. Maybe they are both untrue. That's not for us to decide.

And I think Obama jumped the gun a bit soon to say that the Cambridge Police Pepartment "acted stupidly" and that it was racially motivated when he doesn't even know the full story in the first place.

[Reigh Kaufman]

The police lie?

Never!

You have not been paying attention. More important things are happening: Tweek is peeing and it smells like yellow!

Or something.

:p

I hated this thread until people started talking about how oppressed my own culture is (Scottish). This allows me to behave like a total dick even though Scottish people would kill you soon as obey one order from your mouth.

Now that I am classified, I can talk all manner of smash and y'all better feel appropriately shamed that you are challenging me. I'm oppressed! Feel guilty, you goons!

HOWEVER, I do respect The Heart Collector and QUENTIN. If I seem combative, it is because I believe the OP is being misrepresented. Say what you will: he is a good guy, and there was a certain degree of hyper-sensitivity surrounding his initial post. A hyper-sensitivity that people responded to with their own agendas.

I have no argument with the remit of the BET or the NAACP. I do, however, object to scapegoating a Schmoe with an impeccable posting history.

(And my liberal credentials are all over this fucking place, so only an illiterate would accuse me of racism/bigotry).

That said, White History Month is retarded.

[jackson13]

That said, White History Month is retarded.

Yeah, looking back I really shouldn't have said that. Out of all the things in this thread that one stands out the most as a "ah crap" type thing. But like I said, I was just wanting to know why we dont have one, not demanding we get one.

[BlownCamaro]

The police lie?

Never!



Loud uppity professor who ran his mouth and got arrested lie? Never!

[BakeTheMooCow]

Loud uppity professor who ran his mouth and got arrested lie? Never!

Jesus F. Christ

[someguy]

Serious question can we ban this guy for the racist shit?

[The Heart Collector]

if ther'es someone i trust not to go into a power trip, it's a police officer

[QUENTIN]

And of course the perp would be saying the complete opposite of the police report, because like I said he is playing the race card and saying all of it only happened because he is black.

That goes both ways though. "And of course the officer would be saying the complete opposite of the professor, because like I said he is being accused of racism and doesn't want people to know it happened because he is black."

In my experience (six arrests), I've never seen an accurate and honest police report. Half of those had substantial errors of fact that could only reasonably be described as intentional lies.

I'm far more inclined to believe that the officer is lying about his angelic behavior and exacerbating the belligerence of the professor whose home he was in. And something seems fishy about his assertion that he tried giving his badge number and name twice but was shouted over until a second officer arrived. I'm thinking he refused to give them and when the UPO's showed up, declared that he already had. Though at this stage, obviously, we don't know one way or the other.

The cop certainly should have provided his information upon request, as he is legally required to do. Once it was obvious it was the man's home, he should have apologized for the inconvenience and left. Could the professor very possibly have been oversensitive? Of course. But racial profiling does exist, is rampant, and ANYONE of ANY race is liable to get pissed off for being harassed by the police for committing no crime in the privacy of their own home. I'm certainly obstinate in the face of cops abusing their authority. One does not have to do whatever the police say, that's a false assumption, one does have guaranteed legal rights, never moreso than in the privacy of their own home.

It seems to me at this early stage with the information available that this was exacerbated by both parties acting overboard, but that the only egregious offense was an officer arresting a man on his own property for the ludicrous charge of "exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior." The cop should have walked away, he wanted to prove a point, he cuffed a guy who committed no crime. He didn't beat the guy with a nightstick, but at the least, even if every word of that report is true, it was dumb and totally unnecessary so he's responsible for the fallout.

[Shinigami]

You guys know the more you egg BlownCamaro on the more likely he is to shoot himself in the foot or blow up and say something that will actually get him into trouble.

This thread, in addition to some choice political discussions, have shown me why ot discussion is sometimes bad news for forums like this. You see people making such outrageously stupid posts that you no longer feel like reading what they have to say about anything anymore, movies included. BlownCamaro, you're not one of these posters (it goes without saying that neither are any of the other prominent schmoes in this thread). It's my guess that you're being shitcanned here for a lot of throwaway comments everyone knows better than to take seriously but do anyways for some combative reason or another. The resident ballbusters happen to be sharp, smart people who surely know exactly what they're doing, and how they're trapping, when they go after schmoes for this stuff. Example: I don't think anyone here actually believes BlownCamaro was seriously arguing that NAACP causes more racism than the KKK.

hahaha, "uppity".

...another example

But I do have some history of backing up the wrong people. So if it turns out that you were arguing the NAACP's racism over the KKK's, keep that on the down low so I don't look too bad/naive. thx

[Bourne101]

Not using this as an argument for or against the cop or the professor, but I found it interesting/semi-ironic that the cop has been a teacher of a racial profiling course at the Lowell Police Academy for five years.

[someguy]

How do you know it's not the full truth? Because there is another version to the story, this version all the sudden can't be the truth? One version is true, one version is not. Maybe they are both untrue. That's not for us to decide.

And I think Obama jumped the gun a bit soon to say that the Cambridge Police Pepartment "acted stupidly" and that it was racially motivated when he doesn't even know the full story in the first place.

It's not the full truth because there is another version of the events contradicting it. There are two different stories, that means that there is a full truth. Considering that aspects of both stories match up at points it's wrong to say that one side is COMPLETELY untrue and one side isn't. Obviously both stories have differences and most likely exaggerations or lies in them.

And Shinigami, look at how BC responded to the claims that he said BET was more racist than the KKK. Seems like he was supportive of that opinion.

[BlownCamaro]

Serious question can we ban this guy for the racist shit?

What is racist about what I said? If you mean uppity well then you should learn to read a dictionary.

up⋅pi⋅ty

–adjective Informal.
1. affecting an attitude of inflated self-esteem; haughty; snobbish.
2. rebelliously self-assertive; not inclined to be tractable or deferential.


There have been several reports that the guy thought he was better than anyone without a PHD and would talk down to lower staff members at Harvard.

I think uppity fits perfectly.

If you mean I was racist for calling him a professor, well I cant help you.

So which term was racist?

[QUENTIN]

What is racist about what I said? If you mean uppity well then you should learn to read a dictionary.

up⋅pi⋅ty

–adjective Informal.
1. affecting an attitude of inflated self-esteem; haughty; snobbish.
2. rebelliously self-assertive; not inclined to be tractable or deferential.


There have been several reports that the guy thought he was better than anyone without a PHD and would talk down to lower staff members at Harvard.

I think uppity fits perfectly.

If you mean I was racist for calling him a professor, well I cant help you.

So which term was racist?

Calling a black person "uppity" has a well-known connotation beyond the mere dictionary definition. It means not "knowing their (lesser) place". It was, in fact, a frequent excuse for lynching or murdering black people. I do not believe that you do not know this, and indeed am sure it is why you used that particular word. One cannot reasonably call a homosexual a "faggot" then claim they meant bundle of sticks. Don't be coy.

[Bourne101]

It's not the full truth because there is another version of the events contradicting it. There are two different stories, that means that there is a full truth. Considering that aspects of both stories match up at points it's wrong to say that one side is COMPLETELY untrue and one side isn't. Obviously both stories have differences and most likely exaggerations or lies in them.

I certainly agree with you and that is very likely, but for all we know one of them could be telling the complete truth and the other telling stories with some of the same aspects but scattered with lies. Just because there are two stories that match up at certain points and differ and certain points does not necessarily mean that one of them couldn't be completely true. It's not likely, but possible.

[BlownCamaro]

Sorry, was not aware. Living in a predominately black town I do not recall that ever being used as a racial slur. Plenty of other words used but do not recall uppity being one of them. I use uppity all the time for people of all different races.

I am going to reclaim uppity and save it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6OselVRTsM

[Bourne101]

Calling a black person "uppity" has a well-known connotation beyond the mere dictionary definition. It means not "knowing their (lesser) place". It was, in fact, a frequent excuse for lynching or murdering black people. I do not believe that you do not know this, and indeed am sure it is why you used that particular word. One cannot reasonably call a homosexual a "faggot" then claim they meant bundle of sticks. Don't be coy.

While you may be right, when I read it, it seemed as though he had skimmed through BakeTheMooCow's post where it said "HE WAS BEING UPPITY" and then proceeded to describe him with that word.

[Jon Lyrik]

I like how the forum is suddenly two steps away from being Stormfront.

[ericdraven]

if ther'es someone i trust not to go into a power trip, it's a police officer

If there is someone I trust not to go into a power trip, it's a harvard law professor.

[FLAME_ON]

One thing I've noticed about racism is that people are quick to point it out and love to do so.

Additionally, I do think there's a fine line difference between racism and stereotyping (I could call a black kid wearing baggy clothes and Air Force One's a "thug" but I'm also going to call a white kid, hispanic kid, or asian kid wearing the same thing--a "thug"). And I think in the current state of social/racial issues, people confuse the two. However, with this cop and the professor--I don't know the guy--but I do think we should leave room for the "prideful cop who doesn't take shit lightly" (verses being a racist). Back to stereotyping, I could look at a late-aged black professor and a white one, wearing suits and glasses, standing side-by-side and if I wanted to stereotype them, I could say these guys are intellectual tight asses; but nothing racial would come to mind.
Back to the cop, who's to say this cop wouldn't have treated a white guy the same; if the white guy acted as the professor did? Maybe the cop doesn't see race if the person of another were well aged, dressed in Docker's and a nice golf shirt?
He could have just been a dick, giving anyone a hard time. Except in this case, the person on the other side of the badge is black and decided to make an issue out of it.
I'm by no means defending the cop's actions--anyone should be able to say, "Fuck off this is my house." and as the cop walks away give an additional, "Go fuck yourself." and not get arrested.
But god damn, do we have to jump on the racist train every time something happens with a white guy and someone of another race?
Hell, white people could start saying colored people are racist for thinking every white guy is a racist.

I sort of jumped around a bit, but I hope my point came full circle?

[QUENTIN]

Back to the cop, who's to say this cop wouldn't have treated a white guy the same; if the white guy acted as the professor did?


I actually think this is very likely.

I think the cop sounds like an asshole who couldn't live with the idea of letting an innocent guy who had committed no crime go, because the guy berated him. He felt the need to needlessly flex his authority and show the professor he could "put him in his place," not as a black guy, just as a non-cop. The professor may have been quick to make it a racial thing when in this case it may not have been. But, the professor has good reason to be incredulous and offended that he has cops hassling him for literally doing nothing more than being in his own fucking house, and it's not remotely unreasonable for him to think it might not have happened in the first place if he were white.

It is, however, totally unreasonable for a police officer to arrest someone when he realizes the call he was responding to was totally in error and no crime was being committed, a guy was just pissed off for being disturbed, didn't like the cop's attitude, and was yelling on his own fucking property (I also think it's likely the cop wouldn't give his name and badge number, which he is required to). Police need to keep their cool more than the average citizen and exercise greater discretion, because they are trusted with greater power and authority. The cop's an idiot for arresting the guy, that doesn't necessarily mean he's a racist.

Still, making any solid judgment at this point is shaky. I'm sure more will come to light as this story drags on in the news.

[Smiert Spionam]

What the fuckin' fuck is goin' on in here?!

Should we just rename this the "Playing The Race Card: The Official Race Relations Thread?"

[The Postmaster General]

Where did this notion that you have to do whatever some asshole cop says come into play? No, I mean, really. Police are there to protect and serve. What the fuck would it have mattered if an out-manned and out-armed guy asked for ID and was mad? That's no reason for cops to act like dicks. I don't know where in America we've come to the conclusion that it's okay if cops act like fascists. These police were on private property with no search warrant. It's not the tax paying home owner's burden to show respect just because they can taze him. This whole "you should know better than to give cops a hard time" is totally fucking ridiculous. There's nothing in the law that says a cop has to out yell and dominate someone.

[BlownCamaro]

There's nothing in the law that says a cop has to out yell and dominate someone.

No but there are laws that say you have to obey a commend given by a police officer. He was called out to a possible break in, called a racist for doing his job, and insulted. The police report is the only real evidence of what happened besides what was said by Gates, which of course is that obviously a white policeman is racist and that is why he was arrested. Not because he was yelling and causing a public disturbance.

[The Postmaster General]

No but there are laws that say you have to obey a commend given by a police officer. He was called out to a possible break in, called a racist for doing his job, and insulted. The police report is the only real evidence of what happened besides what was said by Gates, which of course is that obviously a white policeman is racist and that is why he was arrested. Not because he was yelling and causing a public disturbance.


Oh, so if a cop tells you to suck his dick, you'd probably do that because it's the law. Way to miss a point like an underage wannabe mom missing her period - full of enthusiasm and so sure you did something right.

Police are there to serve the public interest, and antagonizing someone isn't in the best interest. Why the fuck because "there are laws that say you have to obey a commend given by a police officer" does that mean cops get to act unprofessionally and without regard to anyone's safety.

What if the guy was mentally ill, and they started yelling at him? What if he was half retarded and had broken in to dress up in his lawyer brother's clothes, because he peed in the bed and needed to feel better about himself. Oh, I guess tough shit, because cops get to act like unprofessional trigger happy fascists in BlownCamaro's world. Hey, here's a better one --- What if the guy couldn't figure out why cops were storming his house and asking for identification when he didn't do anything wrong?

It's people who think like you are proposing that become cops and make the other 99% of them look bad in the face of the public. Keeping the peace doesn't mean keeping an "uppity" black man in his place in his own fucking house. If that's your idea of a scenario that should end in arrest, I can only hope anytime you see an emergency or danger that you find someone who can dial 911, and don't try to help any further beyond that.

Sure, police give orders and they arrest people. Something else they do is diffuse situations. People like to forget about that one, usually not when Mel Gibson is involved though.

[The Heart Collector]

If there is someone I trust not to go into a power trip, it's a harvard law professor.

This doesn't make any sense. I can provide you an extensive list of police officers abusing their powre while trying to deal with a problem or arresting someone needlessly. It's a fairly common ocurrence. Do you have an extensive list of Harvard Law professors abusing their "power" while resisting arrest? I would like to see it. Because that's what we're talking about. It is irrelevant if a professor goes off in the classroom since that's not what we're talking about here.

[BlownCamaro]

Oh, so if a cop tells you to suck his dick, you'd probably do that because it's the law. Way to miss a point like an underage wannabe mom missing her period - full of enthusiasm and so sure you did something right.


Yes because obviously a cop telling you to stfu while he does his job and one telling you to blow him are the same thing! Man you are on top of your game today! High Five!

[jackson13]

The most recent update on the entire story.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32122233/ns/today-today_people/

I'm sorry but I am still fully on the police officers side here. Notice that he mentions as soon as Gate's opened the door he instantly starts hollering about "this is because I'm black isnt it". I suppose white cops, everywhere, should just never interact with black civilians. Maybe that will end all of this nonsense. Next time a call comes in about suspicious activity involving a black man, send a black police officer. Then no one can use the "white cop/black criminal" excuse anymore.

[QUENTIN]

Where did this notion that you have to do whatever some asshole cop says come into play? No, I mean, really. Police are there to protect and serve. What the fuck would it have mattered if an out-manned and out-armed guy asked for ID and was mad? That's no reason for cops to act like dicks. I don't know where in America we've come to the conclusion that it's okay if cops act like fascists. These police were on private property with no search warrant. It's not the tax paying home owner's burden to show respect just because they can taze him. This whole "you should know better than to give cops a hard time" is totally fucking ridiculous. There's nothing in the law that says a cop has to out yell and dominate someone.

I knew there was a reason I liked you.


Most people don't read the two accounts and come to the conclusion that Gates's story is simply a lot more plausible? As in, it seems a much more likely way for a Harvard professor and a cop to behave? Nothing stretches credibility, no one is villainized, everything is explained, and it all fits together and makes sense without resorting to mangling the English language?

Seriously now, what's more likely? A Harvard professor gets so livid at the mere sight of a white cop that he starts endlessly ranting and raving so loudly that he is breaking noise ordinances or a cop who (maybe innocently) was suspicious of the professor's answers (because the professor refused to divulge personal information unrelated to any crime, as is his legal right) followed him into his own home when he was not legally allowed to (without warrant or permission) so the professor wanted his badge number for entering without cause and the cop refused to give it (as he is legally required to) because he didn't want to face the possible ramifications of some "uppity" connected professor getting him in trouble. The professor was indignant and demanded the badge number because the policeman had broken the law (twice now), so he followed him out and seeing a scene and lots of onlookers, the cop wanted to assert that he was in control and it was the professor who was acting inappropriately (which of course by now is not true) so he arrested him and left.

What does your experience as a human being interacting with other humans tell you is a more likely scenario? If you say it's that the old, disabled Harvard professor was uncontrollably and insensibly screaming so loud about racism from the minute the police showed up to the minute he was put into a cruiser, not letting the cop get a word in edgewise and apparently shouting over the officer's repeated attempts to give his name and badge number, to the point that he was a danger to the public on his own property and the completely innocent officer just trying to help had no recourse but to arrest him.... Then you and I haven't just had different life's experiences, I feel like we live on different planets.

In one version of events, the professor doesn't act like any real person would, certainly not a sane and educated man. He acts like some bizarre caricature while the cop is the picture of angelically trying to merely protect and serve and is all but forced into arresting this loon on charged that are absurd on their face ("tumultuous"). In the other version of events, they both act very much like you could expect a cop and a professor to act in such a situation. Maybe I come at it from a different perspective, because in my experience I've met mostly nice and well-intentioned police officers but never seen a remotely accurate incident report, but I feel like it's general common sense that one story is a lot more fishy and unrealistic than the other.

[Preston_79]

I try to remember that cops are regular people just like me and always be respectful. Not always an easy thing to do. I'm siding with the police officer on this one till I hear other witness accounts. There were two other officers on the scene by the time he was arrested, so what do they have to say? One of them was Harvard security and it's his statement I'd most like to hear.

I've been stopped after dark about three times in the last two months for not having a bike light. How fucking gay is that? Each time they're all "Where are you going?" "Where are you coming from?" I want to be like go fuck yourself, but I don't and I go on my way. I have a bike light now, so problem solved I guess.

I think cops target minorities, and yes, some are racist. It doesn't make sense though that this professor would be yelling at you calling you a racist cop, and what do you do, fall right in line with what he's saying and arrest him unjustly? With other officers present no less! Sounds like this professor was belligerent. Show some fucking respect to cops. They have shitty, thankless jobs.

[Bourne101]

At this point, I think the bigger issue is whether or not it was racial profiling. Whatever the situation was, obviously it got out of hand and went further than it should have. Big whoop, it happens all the time, people move on. Just because he's a well-known Harvard professor doesn't give him special privileges over an average Joe who ends up in the same situation. The only reason this is getting any attention is because he is a Harvard professor and because president Obama made some ridiculously stupid comments without any evidence to back them up. If the dude wants to sue the police force for the unnecessary arrest, then that is understandable, just do it and get on with your life.

It seems, regardless of the situation, that it was not racial profiling. If the story about the professor ranting and raving and acting like a lunatic is true, then I don't see how it could have been racial profiling, the professor was just being a douche and the cop overreacted. And if the story about the cop overreacting and not using his power correctly is true, then I still don't see it as racial profiling. I see it as a situation where the cop just got in over his head, made some dumb decisions and made an unnecessary arrest.

So again, the big deal in this whole blown out of proportion situation is whether racial profiling was a factor or not. Based on either story, it would seem that it was not the factor. The fact that this shit will be consuming news stations and newspapers for weeks, maybe months to come is really sad. There are far more important things going on in America such as, I dunno... maybe the health care bill or the Iraq/Afghanistan transition?

[Shinigami]

This whole "you should know better than to give cops a hard time" is totally fucking ridiculous.

Just because you're entitled to something doesn't mean it's very civil of you to act on those entitlements. For the most part I hope people are able to conform to authority without jumping at fascist shadows. There is a submissive relationship between civilians and officers, and that's nothing to do with fascism. It's a shell shock when people figure out just how much attitude they're legally entitled to show police, even on the harmless grounds of ID requests or vehicle searches, but I'm always disappointed in the people who insist on exercising these attitudes, though to conform under even the slightest inconvenience would let authority reign supreme. I've gotten stopped numerous times at odd hours of the night very far from my home. I've had the flashlight shone unreasonably close to my face, and at times I've also been unreasonably inconvenienced because something I did raised police suspicion. But I know better than to retaliate by bitching police out. Making their job unpleasant for them is not worth the ensuing problems. It makes the process longer and slower, and that's a wrath I don't want to bring upon myself cuz I didn't like the way one of the police officers eyeballed me. That's why I don't have my experiences spiral out of control the way other, less fortunately-minded Freedom Fighters do.

Yes, I'm making a mockery out of your otherwise reasonable point. There's a case to be made that my attitude allows misconduct, but we're not talking about anything drastic enough to warrant the fuss (although I don't like how the officer trespassed onto private property). What I'm going to say is a dangerous statement out of context, so I'm trusting that it won't be quoted out of context so a schmoe can :eek: at me: sometimes it is best to nod your head and do what's asked of you. There's a time to fight and a time to demand reasons, but not just because you're blustered and red-faced and felt the officer was condescending or rude. I'm indescribably proud of people who stand up for genuine wrongs and genuine corruption in authority. But I shake my heads when people let their emotions get the better of them in situations where a level head is the best option. When there is no genuine corruption, and the peo'd civilian is standing for nothing but his own wounded ego.

[Cop No. 633]

I don't respect most beat cops mostly because the ones I've met face-to-face have been nothing but assholes with a badge. They're high school graduates at best who never had anywhere to go but to join the biggest gang in the country. Seriously, all of this, "You better respect them because they're the law, have a shitty job..." can go right out the window.

I live in LA. I've seen cops do some fucked up things. 9 times out of 10, I always see somebody of color being stopped or checked by the police here. Racial profiling is inexcusable and it exists in my city. I can't get over it. I'm also left leaning and I've been to protests where the cops were trying to antagonize people for better reason other than beat up on them. Their attitude can be anything but respectable.

As for not giving the cops attitude, I think Shingi, you're right. There's a time and a place. You don't have to yell at them, but you don't have to cower at them like a dog. I've been thrown on the hood of a cop car for simply for trying to go to a party. I barely get out of my car and some cop pulls up to the curb, runs out and pushes me against the hood saying he'll take me in "drinking and driving." I yelled at him and told him to give me a breathalyzer. I told him to get his hands off me. The cop eventually let go and made me promise not to go to the party. Of course, I went right after he left.

It's really hard to sympathize with these people when most of the time I see them stopping homeless people for drugs (which I don't think should be a felony worthy of going to jail for) and randomly stopping anybody brown with a shaved head.

[Shinigami]

My attitude would be disastrous if everyone had it. But selectively I always encourage people to try it out because I've had luck with it. This luck has to do with my appearance, the particular city where I'm being hassled, the particular neighborhood, the mood of the officers, and on and on... but there will always be something to say for attitude, however quietly whispered. Someone might not like the ego of an officer who deliberately walks you right in front of his flashing sirens in the dead of night so you can't see a damn thing while he berates you, but there's a good chance you don't like it cuz his attitude has offended your attitude. He got his dander up, you responded by getting your dander up. That's not a civil reaction. Officers have a different status than civilians, and they do have the right to subject you to some amount of inconvenience.
This only counts for certain situations, of course. I wouldn't argue that somebody should be submissive in any way if they are being violated or hurt or unreasonably embarrassed.

I don't respect most beat cops mostly because the ones I've met face-to-face have been nothing but assholes with a badge. They're high school graduates at best who never had anywhere to go but to join the biggest gang in the country. Seriously, all of this, "You better respect them because they're the law, have a shitty job..." can go right out the window.

That you disrespect them because you might view them as uneducated gang members is your problem, not theirs, and I would encourage officers to give someone a hard time if that someone disrespected them about their education or employment, certainly if that someone disrespected their authority. Complaints of police going around overcompensating are canceled out when civilians respond by overcompensating for something of their own, which is a discomfort of being talked down to and made demands of. As far as I'm concerned, officers have the benefit of the doubt in status tug of wars. Civilians shouldn't make a scene because someone of lower education or trade is momentarily in control, momentarily in a position of power. It will likely cause the officers to enforce their control and power even more, which will probably tick off the civilian even more, and soon the whole pissing contest can elevate to somebody getting hurt or handcuffed.

[jackson13]

...shaved head.

Ooh, good, someone else brought this up so now I feel better about discussing it. I was watching Chappelles show today and during one of the "Ask a Black Dude" segments a guy asked why black guys shave their heads?

It made me wonder as well, especially since if a white guy does it that means we are Skinheads, but for black guys its not only ok, its the normal thing to do. I shaved my head a few years back, mainly cause I wanted a new look, and the very first person I knew who saw me said "whoa, you're a skinhead now"? If I were black, no one would have said a thing, but because I'm white, and I shaved my head, I'm automatically a Skinhead? I dont get it....

[The Postmaster General]

Yes because obviously a cop telling you to stfu while he does his job and one telling you to blow him are the same thing! Man you are on top of your game today! High Five!

I don't know what you are talking about in terms of a "game", but this will be the second time I've addressed every point you've made and you responded by acting like you have no sense of humor and challenging an exaggerated illustration of a point I had already very clearly stated. All the while you haven't really made much of a point aside from following in the footsteps of a long line of great comedic straight men.

If you want to explain to me why you think it's totally cool for police officers to behave in whatever disgruntled and irate manner they feel just because they have guns and cuffs, feel free to explain. If you want to keep playing games, we should battle in American Gladiators. I've trained my whole life to kick your ass in the eliminator.

It's funny because earlier you said he wasn't arrested for making a scene, but that's actually exactly why he was arrested. Anyway, I agree with the arrest, because I don't think the defendant should have taken it to the streets. It would have been pretty easy for him to figure out who was who after they left. That's wherein one of my points is, that the police just made the situation worse when they really could have made it better. They have to deal with things a lot worse than that, and their job isn't to go around arresting people who give them hard times.

I try to remember that cops are regular people just like me and always be respectful. Not always an easy thing to do. I'm siding with the police officer on this one till I hear other witness accounts. There were two other officers on the scene by the time he was arrested, so what do they have to say? One of them was Harvard security and it's his statement I'd most like to hear.

I've been stopped after dark about three times in the last two months for not having a bike light. How fucking gay is that? Each time they're all "Where are you going?" "Where are you coming from?" I want to be like go fuck yourself, but I don't and I go on my way. I have a bike light now, so problem solved I guess.

I think cops target minorities, and yes, some are racist. It doesn't make sense though that this professor would be yelling at you calling you a racist cop, and what do you do, fall right in line with what he's saying and arrest him unjustly? With other officers present no less! Sounds like this professor was belligerent. Show some fucking respect to cops. They have shitty, thankless jobs.

I agree, but they don't have much respect for themselves if they have to use their authority to deal with someone who's giving them shit of this nature. Why isn't anyone talking about the citizen who was just out and came home, was locked out, probalby had to take a shit, broke in, went to take a shit, but the cops showed up... I don't know, but it's one of those situations that should have ended in "My bad."

You know who else is regular people just like you? Regular people just like you. That's what I'm on about more or less - Cops don't have license to be disgruntled at work just because they are cops. They should hold themselves to a higher standard of behavior.

Just because you're entitled to something doesn't mean it's very civil of you to act on those entitlements. For the most part I hope people are able to conform to authority without jumping at fascist shadows. There is a submissive relationship between civilians and officers, and that's nothing to do with fascism. It's a shell shock when people figure out just how much attitude they're legally entitled to show police, even on the harmless grounds of ID requests or vehicle searches, but I'm always disappointed in the people who insist on exercising these attitudes, though to conform under even the slightest inconvenience would let authority reign supreme. I've gotten stopped numerous times at odd hours of the night very far from my home. I've had the flashlight shone unreasonably close to my face, and at times I've also been unreasonably inconvenienced because something I did raised police suspicion. But I know better than to retaliate by bitching police out. Making their job unpleasant for them is not worth the ensuing problems. It makes the process longer and slower, and that's a wrath I don't want to bring upon myself cuz I didn't like the way one of the police officers eyeballed me. That's why I don't have my experiences spiral out of control the way other, less fortunately-minded Freedom Fighters do.

Yes, I'm making a mockery out of your otherwise reasonable point. There's a case to be made that my attitude allows misconduct, but we're not talking about anything drastic enough to warrant the fuss (although I don't like how the officer trespassed onto private property). What I'm going to say is a dangerous statement out of context, so I'm trusting that it won't be quoted out of context so a schmoe can :eek: at me: sometimes it is best to nod your head and do what's asked of you. There's a time to fight and a time to demand reasons, but not just because you're blustered and red-faced and felt the officer was condescending or rude. I'm indescribably proud of people who stand up for genuine wrongs and genuine corruption in authority. But I shake my heads when people let their emotions get the better of them in situations where a level head is the best option. When there is no genuine corruption, and the peo'd civilian is standing for nothing but his own wounded ego.

For me, it's not really about the civilian standing up for himself. I kind of liken that guy to probably be a dick too. I'm just not agreeing with this idea that just because cops are cops they can be ass holes. Good citizenship is something that should be demonstrated. There's a lot of crime in the country. A lot of energy doesn't need to be focused on, at the worst, someone breaking and entering.

[starcat]

To think I never come in the misc. forums... so I have read this whole thing in one sitting and man... I have had a blast.

I have learned that uppity is a racial term. Personally I think that is ludicrious, and in my 33 years of life have never heard that once, and i've heard alot.

I thought bright orangy yellow pee meant you smoked alot of weed.

No white person wants a white history month. The whole idea of a any specific race history month is stupid. Just teach it all, all year long. 8 out of 10 students dont give a fuck what color the person is they are learning about, cause they dont wanna be there learning the shit anyway. I was down with black history month once upon a time, but now its been long enough, integrate it together.

Alot of white people consider themselves or call themselves Gangsta... in fact when I first clicked on it I didnt even assume that it was gonna be about black people, so I still dont see how my man Jackson was being racist in the title as well. Dont worry dude, i've been readin your shit for years now, I got your back.

So much shit I could say... but thats good for now.

[Cop No. 633]

Ooh, good, someone else brought this up so now I feel better about discussing it. I was watching Chappelles show today and during one of the "Ask a Black Dude" segments a guy asked why black guys shave their heads?

It made me wonder as well, especially since if a white guy does it that means we are Skinheads, but for black guys its not only ok, its the normal thing to do. I shaved my head a few years back, mainly cause I wanted a new look, and the very first person I knew who saw me said "whoa, you're a skinhead now"? If I were black, no one would have said a thing, but because I'm white, and I shaved my head, I'm automatically a Skinhead? I dont get it....

Well, my friends who shaved their heads always did it because they were tired of dealing with their hair which is really kinky. Others do it because they get a receding hairline and just do it. It's really for a practical reason. You ever have friends with really curly hair? They always seemed to complain to me and talk about how lucky I was to have straight hair. I guess some people would just shave it off because they thought it was cool, but I never heard somebody say it.

As for white people having that problem, I agree, I think it sucks that people will automatically assume you're a skinhead. My brother shaved his head from time to time, and it's insane how he would get stopped by cops while he was simply driving to the store. The whole aversion to shaved heads should really just die in my opinion. It doesn't mean anything most of the time. Hell, there are "skinheads" who aren't "skinheads" if you know what I mean (those who were/are working class Mods). It's too bad the racist guys had to appropriate the style. Then again, Hitler did the same thing with the sign of life/Buddha.

[drc5145]

Seems like this forum is inching its way to nuking the fridge.

It's definitely one hell of an interesting thread, to say the least.

[BakeTheMooCow]

I have learned that uppity is a racial term. Personally I think that is ludicrious, and in my 33 years of life have never heard that once, and i've heard alot.

You haven't heard a lot because otherwise at some point in your life you would have been exposed to the fact that "uppity" has racial overtones.

Some quick searches:

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/7167/wisechoicesaptfeelingsa.png

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/281/menandviolencegenderhon.png

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/7087/imageryoflynchingblackmz.png

Do you still think that it's an innocuous term? That just because you and BlownCamaro have always used it to talk about puppies and rainbows that it's "ludicrous" to think of the word as having strong racial connotations?

[BlownCamaro]

You haven't heard a lot because otherwise at some point in your life you would have been exposed to the fact that "uppity" has racial overtones.


Do you still think that it's an innocuous term? That just because you and BlownCamaro have always used it to talk about puppies and rainbows that it's "ludicrous" to think of the word as having strong racial connotations?



Sorry if the black man decides on random words to be insulted by. I can not help it I can read a dictionary and have used the term correctly. I will continue to use uppity to describe some jack ass who thinks they are better than others.

[Smarmy Douche]

Sorry if the black man decides on random words to be insulted by. I can not help it I can read a dictionary and have used the term correctly. I will continue to use uppity to describe some jack ass who thinks they are better than others.

Jesus Christ.

The black man. I told myself I wasn't going to continue engaging in this kind of discussion on a movie forum, but this is too rich.

The black man. You're not even pretending you're not racist anymore. Which I guess is better in the long run.

[BakeTheMooCow]

Sorry if the black man decides on random words to be insulted by. I can not help it I can read a dictionary and have used the term correctly. I will continue to use uppity to describe some jack ass who thinks they are better than others.

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/7691/qxryuc.gif

[BlownCamaro]

The black man. You're not even pretending you're not racist anymore. Which I guess is better in the long run.


Oh my god I said THE BLACK MAN!!! Oh lawdy someone get Al Sharpton on the phone!!!

[Smarmy Douche]

Oh my god I said THE BLACK MAN!!! Oh lawdy someone get Al Sharpton on the phone!!!

Well, being that you're racist and have absolutely no intention nor desire to be otherwise, I'll keep this short.

You cannot be totally antagonistic towards a group of people, truly, with an antagonistic tone, using antagonistic and racially steeped language, and then pretend like that it sheds no light on your character.

You need to come live in my town. 80% black and 20% white. See how you feel after a month here.

Why would you feel any particular way? They're people. They are human beings. They are not saucer people from Mars. If you're so uncomfortable living amongst anyone who isn't white it says a lot more about you than anything or anyone else.

Normal people do not walk around blanketing entire groups people with irrational dislike. Abandoning the idea of the individual in favor of judging 'all of them' and pinning a label on that them, the BLANK, namely, "the black man", is a dive down the rabbit hole of bitter ignorance no matter you paint it.

Oh my god I said THE BLACK MAN!!! Oh lawdy someone get Al Sharpton on the phone!!!

Oh lawdy, I wonder why you felt that was the perfect phrase to display how not racist you are. Christ.

Agreed. I am done debating this. Back to the issue that inner city youths can no longer afford $500 shoes.

Good idea.

[Jon Lyrik]

But a black person was mean to me once and they annoy me with their materialism!

[jackson13]

Whenever I hear the word 'uppity' it reminds me of a line from the classic 'Blazing Saddles':

"That uppity nigger went and hit me in the head with a shovel!"


So yes, uppity does have racist connotations. Duh.

[echo_bravo]

Okay folks, I got another topic I have been curious about...

What are all of your thoughts on the New Haven firefighters controversy? It happened not too long ago.

Maybe there is more to it but personally I thought it was a load of shit.

Here's a link to the controversy
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30346519/

They basically screwed some of the white firefighters out of a promotion just because no black firefighters passed it.

[BakeTheMooCow]

I thought that whole firefighters controversy was garbage because no one can actually explain HOW the exam was racist. Just saying so is not sufficient. I read somewhere that if they had just rounded up the score, some black firefighters would have passed. Well, so what? Everyone that has ever taken a test would like to have their scores rounded up.

[starcat]

Thats wild... uppity was always used for people who acted better than everyone else, usually they had or just required money... I dont know, i've just never heard of it being used racially. But hey, the term nappy headed girls was always used for girls that looked an unkempt way, not about black girls where i'm from so it took me awhile to see what the Imus fuss was about too. Maybe if people would quit trying to make every term said racist everything wouldnt seem racist.

[Bourne101]

To be fair to BlownCamaro, BakeTheMooCow used the term "uppity" well before he did.

My thoughts are that I don't believe a second of the police report. I don't believe Skip Gates acted that way. If he did get angry, I don't blame him for having police officers in his home questioning why he's there. Arresting someone for that is ridiculous.

HE WAS BEING UPPITY.

And when both of them said it, it really didn't sound like they were using it in a racist manner. Yes, it has racist connotations, but it's not really something that is commonly used anymore, is it? When I think of uppity, I just think of people that think they are better than others, the ones who raise their nose up and look down on people.

As for the firefighter thing, I believe it was discussed in the politics section. It's pretty much just complete bullshit. There is no evidence that it was racist and no one can describe how it was racist.

[Jon Lyrik]

Yeah, but don't you live in Canada? The only historical KKK stronghold I can imagine up there is Moose Jaw, and something tells me there weren't too many black people in the prairie anyway.

[BakeTheMooCow]

Mine was not serious. BlownCamaro didn't know the term was racist. Learn the difference.

And the reason it's not used anymore is because of the connotations.

[Bourne101]

Yeah, but don't you live in Canada? The only historical KKK stronghold I can imagine up there is Moose Jaw, and something tells me there weren't too many black people in the prairie anyway.

Are you fucking serious? Your ignorance is beyond hilarious. This notion that Canada is this 100% loving, accepting place is just complete crap. And just because there was never a "KKK stronghold" does not mean that the racist terms were/are never used here. I live in a rural area where black people are harassed all of the time. I posted an article a while back in the politics section regarding two acquaintances of mine (both black) who were tazed by a group of cops for absolutely no reason. You go to any parking lot and you'll see confederate flag plates on the front of at least one car. So no, we're not talking deep south, segregated prom type areas, but this notion that Canada is just this racism free, accepting place is just crap.

[Bourne101]

Mine was not serious. BlownCamaro didn't know the term was racist. Learn the difference.

When I read it, it sounded as though you were saying it like "He was being uppity, that's no reason to arrest the man." Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Jon Lyrik]

Are you fucking serious? Your ignorance is beyond hilarious. This notion that Canada is this 100% loving, accepting place is just complete crap. And just because there was never a "KKK stronghold" does not mean that the racist terms were/are never used here. I live in a rural area where black people are harassed all of the time. I posted an article a while back in the politics section regarding two acquaintances of mine (both black) who were tazed by a group of cops for absolutely no reason. You go to any parking lot and you'll see confederate flag plates on the front of at least one car. So no, we're not talking deep south, segregated prom type areas, but this notion that Canada is just this racism free, accepting place is just crap.

Uh, I was clearly implying that there are different expressions and flavors of racism in Canada. Example: nobody says "wog" in North America.

But a guy living in Georgia that uses "uppity", and does not realize the racist connotations? That's hard to swallow, even if it was swimming in his head from Bake's post.

[Bourne101]

Uh, I was clearly implying that there are different expressions and flavors of racism in Canada. Example: nobody says "wog" in North America.

But a guy living in Georgia that uses "uppity", and does not realize the racist connotations? That's hard to swallow, even if it was swimming in his head from Bake's post.

Fair enough.

[Darth Kenshin]

today was the first time I opened this thread... curious about why it got so many responses. Yike. However, this was awesome:

Jesus Christ.

The black man. I told myself I wasn't going to continue engaging in this kind of discussion on a movie forum, but this is too rich.

The black man. You're not even pretending you're not racist anymore. Which I guess is better in the long run.

hahaha... OWNED

[QUENTIN]

Gatesgate (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/gatesgate-by-digby-i-have-been.html)

by digby

I have been reluctant to really delve into the Gates story because well ... it just seems so obvious. And it's clear that it's just taking the wingnut bait. But since I write often about police abuse of power, particularly with tasers, some readers seem to be interested in a larger discussion of this incident so here goes.

First, I think that there is obviously a racial component here, but I don't see it as classic "profiling" at least in the traditional sense that someone is targeted for a police stop solely because of their race. The circumstance as I understand them are that the police responded to a call of a possible burglary with two black suspects. The idea that they wouldn't have responded to that call if the description had been two white suspects is not believable. It's what happened after that fits the racial narrative.

One racial component is the reflexive angry defensiveness that white people often feel at being called racist when they don't believe (rightly or wrongly) that they are. This cop, a man who we are told teaches other cops how to avoid racial profiling, may have felt he was being unfairly targeted as a racist and he got angry. The "angry black man" syndrome, whereby blacks' sensibilities in such situations are discounted as being a "chip on the shoulder" or somehow a function of an inherently angry temperament adds to the mix. Black people are assumed to be "dangerous" in situations where whites get the benefit of the doubt. I really don't think that's debatable.

Having said that, to me, this situation actually has far broader implications about all citizens' relationship to the police and the way we are expected to respond to authority, regardless of race. I've watched too (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fizo-sOSE6o) many (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ_Whe6dD-M&feature=fvw) taser (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lpzn4ST0C9E)videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd9T8WyrKhQ&NR=1)over (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPseyY0Vg0E&NR=1) the (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GgWrV8TcUc) past (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqAVvlyVbag) few (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMpEr-MOSyk) years (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKzSHtYqQvo&feature=related) (Q: watch those for incidences of cops totally unnecessarily freaking out and using violence on unarmed people who pose no threat simply because they weren't deferential to them) featuring people of all races and both genders being put to the ground screaming in pain, not because they were dangerous or threatening and not because they were so out of control there was no other way to deal with them, but because they were arguing with police and the officer perceived a lack of respect for the badge.

I have discovered that my hackles automatically going up at such authoritarian behavior is not necessarily the common reaction among my fellow Americans, not even my fellow liberals. The arguments are usually something along the lines of "that guy was an idiot to argue with the cops, he should know better," which is very similar to what many are saying about Gates. He has even been criticized for being a "bad role model," thus putting young black kids at risk if they do the same things.

Now, on a practical, day to day level, it's hard to argue that being argumentative with a cop is a dangerous thing. They have guns. They can arrest you and can cost you your freedom if they want to do it badly enough. They can often get away with doing violence on you and suffer no consequences. You are taking a risk if you provoke someone with that kind of power, no doubt about it.

Indeed, it is very little different than exercising your right of free speech to tell a gang of armed thugs to go fuck themselves. It's legal, but it's not very smart. But that's the problem isn't it? We shouldn't have to make the same calculations about how to behave with police as we would with armed criminals. The police are supposed to be the good guys who follow the rules and the law and don't expect innocent citizens to bow to their brute power the same way that a street gang would do. The police are not supposed wield what is essentially brute force on the entire population.

And yet, that's what we are told we are supposed to accept. Not only can they arrest us merely for being argumentative as they did with Gates, they are now allowed to shoot us full of electricity to make us comply with their demands to submit.

There is a philosophical underpinning to all this that I am only beginning to fully understand. It was discussed in this very interesting guest post over at Crooked Timber (http://crookedtimber.org/2009/07/23/police-discretion-a-different-perspective/) by a police officer and philosopher who went through the various elements of the case and offered his perspective. Much of what he wrote was very thought provoking and made me think a bit about my reflexive recoil against police behaviors in so many of these situations. But some of what he wrote reinforced my belief that something has gone wrong:

The judgments of policing are obviously difficult and subjective, and are often marred when they are made in the face of people issuing inflammatory comments even as the police are rendering routine services with an obvious cause. It is in the collective interest of citizens and police to promote an environment where the police can conduct an investigation calmly and with mutual respect. It cannot become commonplace for people to be allowed to scream at the police in public, threatening them with political phone calls, deriding their abilities, etc. Routine acts like rendering aid to lost children, taking accident reports and issuing traffic violations could be derailed at any time by any person who has a perceived grievance with the police. The police service environment is not the best venue for the airing of such grievances.



This is a form of blackmail similar to the CIA threatening to let terrorists kill us if they are held accountable for lawbreaking. It says that the police will not be willing to rescue lost children if they have to put up with yelling citizens. That is an abdication of their duties and the idea that they should then be given carte blanche to shut up all citizens by means of arrest, because it creates a social environment where someone might cause a distraction in the future, is Orwellian double talk.

And it makes a mockery of the first amendment. If police are to be shielded from public criticism when they are acting in their official capacity then we have an authoritarian state. If yelling at the authorities is a crime then we do not have free speech.

He goes on:

The police should not be cowed by threats of phone calls to people such as mayors, police chiefs and presidents of the United States, along with allegations that “you don’t know who you’re messing with.” It is traditionally whites who have had this type of crooked access and influence. These appeals to higher authorities are often meant to exempt the ruling castes from following the rules and laws that the rest of the community will be expected to follow. It happens, it is unfortunate, and it is not in the interests of justice for it to continue. Nobody trying to do their job fairly deserves to hear the equivalent of “My daddy donated fifty million to this university, and you’ll be getting calls from everywhere in the administration about raising my grade enough for this class to count as a distributive requirement.”



It is very rude of citizens to do that, to be sure. But it is not a crime. The idea that people should not get angry, should not pull rank, should be rude to others is an issue for sociologists and Miss Manners, not the cops. Humans often behave badly, but that doesn't make it illegal. For people with such tremendous power as police officers to be coddled into thinking that these are behaviors that allow them to arrest people (or worse) seems to be to far more dangerous than allowing a foolish person or two to set a bad example in the public square.

He continues:

It is possible for a person to commit disorderly conduct by unabated screaming and verbal abuse in a public setting. Without drawing conclusions about the Gates case, there comes some point where a person is genuinely causing public alarm, and where he is acting with a rage that exceeds what we can expect from a reasonable person in a heated moment. The mere presence of the police conducting a legitimate investigation should not provoke continuous rage and epithets from such a person. One response is that the police should just leave if the investigation has been conducted successfully, and that this will calm the person down. In practice, this is indeed often the best thing to do. On the other hand, it should be noted that it is just as much the responsibility of the citizen to see that his actions are an inappropriate way to relate to police officers who have not, in the specific case at hand, acted unreasonably. This point may be hotly contested, but I believe it is true: there is no obligation for the police to hurry in their activities or to leave as soon as possible because they have incited the rage of a person who is acting unreasonably. There is a distinction between hanging around to show them who’s boss and working at a steady, professional pace, to be sure. But in the end the mere presence of the police cannot be seen as an acceptable reason for disorderly conduct, and should therefore not spur the police to leave a scene simply to de-escalate it. A police strategy of “winning by appearing to lose” emboldens citizens to attempt to get the police to lose in more and more serious matters, including walking away from situations where a person is genuinely guilty of a crime.



At this point we are seeing a tipping in the other direction. Police are emboldened when they repeatedly get away with using bullying, abusive tactics against average citizens who have not been convicted of any crimes. This (http://www.2news.tv/news/local/51404747.html) is the kind of thing that results:

Police say they struggled to get inside the home to speak with the man. When police managed to get inside the home, the suspect was placed in handcuffs. The complainant alleged that he was Tased three times by police - once to his wrist, the second to the small of his back and the third to his buttocks.

The ombudsman's report states that the suspect was tased only two times after an investigation. One of those tases, however, was in the buttocks.

The use of force "was after he was handcuffed," said Ombudsman Pierce Murphy. "And it was in the most senstive, private areas, and accompanied by threats."

The suspect can be heard pleading to the police several times that he couldn't breathe when officers were on top of him.

"I can't breathe - just let me up, I want to breathe," he says.

The officer quickly replied, "If you're talking - you're breathing."

The report also states that the officers used excessive language.

"If you move again, I'm going to stick this Taser up your (expletive) and pull the trigger," the complaint said. "Now, do you feel this in your (expletive)? - I'm going to tase your (expletive) if you move again."



It was determined that the cop had the taser literally pushed up against the man's anus.

In an earlier portion of his essay on Crooked Timber, the officer talked about how we need to allow police to have discretion and explained that it works as often as not in the favor of the suspect as a matter of common sense. (Police often let people go with a warning, for instance, rather than adhere strictly to the letter of the law.) And that's reasonable.

But when it comes to race we've got a terrible history of discretion not being extended in favor of blacks --- and the increased use of tasers is turning this concept of discretion into a license to torture. A policeman using his discretion to arrest a man in his own home because he was not deferential enough is just one more incident along a long road of creeping authoritarianism.

I said the other night that I thought Gates was lucky he didn't get tased and I really think he was. People all over this country are "subdued" by means of electricity every day, probably more blacks than whites, but it doesn't seem to be particularly limited to race. We are accepting this kind of thing as if it's just an inevitability because of the attitudes this police officer very thoughtfully lays out in his essay: we are told that we must defer to authority or risk all hell breaking loose.

And I would suggest that it is just that attitude that led to people in this country recently endorsing unilateral illegal invasions, torture of prisoners and the rest. You remember the line --- "the constitution isn't a suicide pact." To which many of us replied with the old Benjamin Franklin quote: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The principles here are the same. Sure, we should treat the cops with respect and society shouldn't encourage people to be reflexively hostile to police. They have a tough job, and we should all be properly respectful of people who are doing a dangerous and necessary job for the community. But when a citizen doesn't behave well, if not illegally, as will happen in a free society, it is incumbent upon the police, the ones with the tasers and the handcuffs and the guns, to exercise discretion wisely and professionally. And when they don't, we shouldn't make excuses for them. It's far more corrosive to society to allow authority figures to abuse their power than the other way around.

Henry Louis Gates may have acted like a jackass in his house that day. But Sergeant Crowley arresting him for being "tumultuous" was an abuse of his discretion, a fact which is backed up by the fact that the District Attorney used his discretion to decline to prosecute. Racially motivated or not he behaved "stupidly" and the president was right to say so.

[Cop No. 633]

That was a very good article Quentin. I agree with the points that were brought up.


My attitude would be disastrous if everyone had it. But selectively I always encourage people to try it out because I've had luck with it. This luck has to do with my appearance, the particular city where I'm being hassled, the particular neighborhood, the mood of the officers, and on and on... but there will always be something to say for attitude, however quietly whispered. Someone might not like the ego of an officer who deliberately walks you right in front of his flashing sirens in the dead of night so you can't see a damn thing while he berates you, but there's a good chance you don't like it cuz his attitude has offended your attitude. He got his dander up, you responded by getting your dander up. That's not a civil reaction. Officers have a different status than civilians, and they do have the right to subject you to some amount of inconvenience.

This only counts for certain situations, of course. I wouldn't argue that somebody should be submissive in any way if they are being violated or hurt or unreasonably embarrassed.

That you disrespect them because you might view them as uneducated gang members is your problem, not theirs, and I would encourage officers to give someone a hard time if that someone disrespected them about their education or employment, certainly if that someone disrespected their authority. Complaints of police going around overcompensating are canceled out when civilians respond by overcompensating for something of their own, which is a discomfort of being talked down to and made demands of. As far as I'm concerned, officers have the benefit of the doubt in status tug of wars. Civilians shouldn't make a scene because someone of lower education or trade is momentarily in control, momentarily in a position of power. It will likely cause the officers to enforce their control and power even more, which will probably tick off the civilian even more, and soon the whole pissing contest can elevate to somebody getting hurt or handcuffed.

I find this to be a very strange response. For all the wording I read, all I can really get out of your reply is to be subservient to the police whenever they stop you. I never said that you should refuse any order at any time by a cop. I never implied to fight the cops. I just gave my point of view that I don't hold them with a high regard and I said why. The briefest thing you actually wrote that I found the most truthful was this: I wouldn't argue that somebody should be submissive in any way if they are being violated or hurt or unreasonably embarrassed.

I've seen that kind of situation more often than not. I live right in front of a police station.

The fact that you think I'm looking down on cops has nothing to do with their education but what they have shown me when I've spoken to them face-to-face. My brother and I have confronted them for being too aggressive with people who were being, as you suggested, submissive during an arrest. I hate seeing people abuse their power so if it makes me a stuck up jerk for actually caring that cops in my city are often high on their power, then I'll gladly wear that badge.

I don't "disrespect" them when I have been confronted by them. I try to reason and be civil, but the fact is that most of the time, they lack those qualities. I've been stopped a block away from my house simply because I had allergies and my eyes were red. I explained this to them and they still wanted to hassle me over something so dumb. I wasn't driving erratically, I didn't break the law in any way, and yet they stopped me, and came at me with a condescending tone (Allergies... Yeah, right.)when I told them the truth. I really can't respect that kind of authoritative attitude. I doubt anybody would respect a person like that if they simply met them on the street.

I just think there should be more rigorous standards as to who gets to be a cop. I don't think the meat head from my high school who barely graduated should have the power to decide what is right and wrong and who gets to be arrested. I don't trust that judgement.

I'm curious, but what are you trying to imply about this "luck" you have. I don't know if you're being literal or not because of the italics.

This luck has to do with my appearance, the particular city where I'm being hassled, the particular neighborhood, the mood of the officers, and on and on

[The Postmaster General]

I'm glad people get this. The police should be respected, not feared. I've dealt with I don't know how many cops, but it's in the 100s. They are meant to be the good guys. Not like in the case of this Gates incident, the bigger assholes.

[Shinigami]

The police should be respected, not feared.

This sums up my opinion too. It should be the common ground for everyone. I'm going to continue on with my argument, but BubbaStrangelove gave me a good base to jump back to if I ever get too out there.

On luck:
CosmicPuppet ^ I'm admitting that my positive experiences with police officers probably had more to do with luck than my sparkling Yes'sir attitude. Being polite and respectful isn't a golden ticket that will avoid any unpleasant situation under any circumstance. The luck of the draw has a lot to do with it.

I just gave my point of view that I don't hold them with a high regard and I said why.

You added a negative opinion of their education and career while explaining why you don't hold police in high regard (They're high school graduates at best who never had anywhere to go but to join the biggest gang in the country). Then you did it again just now (I don't think the meat head from my high school who barely graduated should have the power to decide what is right and wrong and who gets to be arrested). It's distracting.
But I have nothing to say about your firsthand experience seeing other people being treated badly by officers. I doubt there are many apologists for those sorry examples. Assuming that you're right in judging their conduct, good on you and your brother for doing something about it.

I don't "disrespect" them when I have been confronted by them. I try to reason and be civil, but the fact is that most of the time, they lack those qualities. I've been stopped a block away from my house simply because I had allergies and my eyes were red. I explained this to them and they still wanted to hassle me over something so dumb. I wasn't driving erratically, I didn't break the law in any way, and yet they stopped me, and came at me with a condescending tone (Allergies... Yeah, right.)when I told them the truth. I really can't respect that kind of authoritative attitude. I doubt anybody would respect a person like that if they simply met them on the street.

IMO that's a harmless attitude on their part. It's no more dangerously authoritative than your own example would've been dangerously rebellious. I find both harmless, although I side with the officers. Going by exactly what you typed, they didn't violate you. They didn't grab you or unreasonably embarrass you or shame you in any way. Imo you should have accommodated them. It's less about being submissive than about compromising with the no bullshit front a lot of officers have to carry around with them when they're on duty. Every now and again it flashes out at a civilian when it shouldn't, but that's acceptable as long as no personal violations occur.

Do you think we even disagree with each other? Or is this happening...
CosmicPuppet: I don't believe we should accommodate officers when they abuse their power in unreasonable ways!
Shinigami: Yes, but I don't believe we should give officers attitude when they don't abuse their power in unreasonable ways.
:D

Here's an example of the situations I'm after. I encountered a police officer one morning at 1 AM. I was bicycling to a nearby grocery store to get myself a very late dinner, and I slowed as I coasted through the parking lot, up the curb in front of the store. The officer sneaked his police car behind me as close as he could, then turned on his siren. I was really startled. Then the officer came out of his car and waved me over. After I came over he asked the routine Qs. What I was doing there, could he see some identification. I didn't have my ID with me, but I cooperated as best as I could under the circumstances. When I got around to telling him my birth date I stumbled on one of the dates and had to correct myself.
He noticed this immediately. "Sounds like you're making that up," he said. Right around this time I wanted to tell Sherlock Holmes here that I get a little bit jittery when a cop decides to crawl up behind me and blare his sirens at me when I have my headphones on. If you walk up beside someone and yell BOO! they're probably going to stammer a little bit until their heart rate settles down. I wanted to tell him that it was one in the morning and I couldn't process anything but figuring out what I wanted to eat.
Instead I took a breath. I gave him a clear birth date, went from there. When he asked me where I lived I told him that my apartment was a few miles away. I gave him the address.
He paused again. Eyeballed me again. "You said your address was only a few miles away, but that street is a little more than a few miles away."
Facepalm. I don't quite remember what I replied with, only that I reiterated it was only a few miles away. Three or four. Five at the most. The whole time I was thinking I'm sorry my casual sense of measurement doesn't match your casual sense of measurement officer dickhead.
Eventually he let it go. Eventually he let the whole thing go. The officer let me be, but considering his tempers it wouldn't have gone that way if I'd given him attitude for any of the bullshit he put me through. But he didn't violate me or grab me or hurt me or embarrass me or even shine a bright light in my face like one cop did. I wasn't scared of him, I was respectful of his temperament and didn't feel like further inconveniencing myself just to stick it to some cop at one in the morning. I knew that officers caught some deserving people on harmless slip-ups like stammered birth dates or fake addresses, and I also knew that sometimes officers intentionally gave innocent civilians grief just cuz they could. But I didn't give a shit which background was motivating this guy because officers have the benefit of the doubt in these tug of wars.

These are the situations where I'm telling people to be respectful and more or less do what you're told instead of bitch out. If I had bitched out the situation would've soured, and I would've been a prime candidate to complain to everyone I knew that I'd been attacked by a power hungry fascist cop. Which is exactly the behavior I'm calling out as bs.
If your situation isn't like this one, I'm not addressing you. If it is, I am.

[Cop No. 633]

I see what you're saying. I hate those situations myself. It's happened more than a couple of times in my short life. The thing I hate most about those moments is that they make you feel like you might be guilty of something even though you're really just going about your day.

I think we both have gotten somewhat confused by our posts. I get the feeling you're confusing my views on them with how I act when they stop me. Just because I hold them in that light, it doesn't mean I disrespect them or act smug in person. I can't help but to think of certain cops as meat heads since that is what they are presenting to me. I don't think that what they did to me or other people is harmless attitude. I think it actually is negative and boosts their ego to continue acting that way with civilians. I just wish cops like the ones I've encountered would show better judgement and respect. They obviously don't have the first if they're stopping a guy who's just going to the store because they look suspicious.

On that note, here's a good instructional video as to how to act with a cop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8 :)

[Bourne101]

On that note, here's a good instructional video as to how to act with a cop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8 :)

Haha, that was great. :D

[jackson13]

An update on the Gates Race War:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/index.html


The woman who called 911 never referred to Gates, or anyone, as "black". So, so far, the only person to get bent out of shape about Black people, and bring race into the issue, has been Gate's himself. Interesting.

[QUENTIN]

Yeah, I saw that story today, in the same context. Being used as some sort of evidence or vindication of...I'm not sure what.

I haven't seen anyone argue that the woman called the police because people she saw forcing their way into the home were black, and wouldn't have if they were white. That's not where the race comes into it. This "revelation" seems a total non-sequitir.

Furthermore, I think most of us recognize and primarily argued that this is much less about race than it is about police abusing their authority and conducting themselves inappropriately or "stupidly."

[jackson13]

Furthermore, I think most of us recognize and primarily argued that this is much less about race than it is about police abusing their authority and conducting themselves inappropriately or "stupidly."

But they didn't. They responded to a routine B&E call and asked the man inside the house to provide I.D. to prove he lived there and the guy lost his shit and turned it into a race issue. Those are the facts.

[someguy]

There's also the fact that Gates did provide his ID to the cop but the police officer didn't provide his ID when asked (and Massachusetts law says an officer has to if requested).

[BlownCamaro]

There's also the fact that Gates did provide his ID to the cop but the police officer didn't provide his ID when asked (and Massachusetts law says an officer has to if requested).



Where did this "fact" come from. Only person I have heard say anything about this was Gates. No one else supports this. I have not watched any news in the last 24 hours though so that is why I ask.

[QUENTIN]

But they didn't. They responded to a routine B&E call and asked the man inside the house to provide I.D. to prove he lived there and the guy lost his shit and turned it into a race issue. Those are the facts.

What is your basis for stating this is a "fact"? I wasn't there, you weren't there, and there's no videotape evidence of what actually occurred.

I've been following the case and as far as I can tell, the facts are today what they were the day this came out. We have contradictory and subjective stories from Officer Crowley and Professor Gates, and I've yet to hear of any impartial third party witnesses coming out and saying anything one way or the other that might lend extra credence to either.

If you choose to take the officer's word as Bible truth, that's fine, but just because something appears in an "official" police report doesn't make it a fact and there is still great and understandable dispute about what happened. The police report (http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/fredhampton.htm) about Fred Hampton's death said Hampton attempted to open fire on officers and was killed in self-defense, when the facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton) came out in subsequent investigation it turned out that he was drugged by the FBI and was passed out when he was shot with automatic weapons, including at point-blank range. I'm not equating Hampton's treatment with Gates, but it serves to illustrate that it's unreasonable to declare something a "fact" just by virtue of it being in a police report.

I think the truth of what happened in that house may lie somewhere in the middle, but am pretty certain that the Officer entered Gates' home illegally and then refused to properly identify himself, as he is legally required to do. This would explain Gates subsequent loss of his shit and makes the whole incident make logical sense rather than straining credibility. I wouldn't, however, think to assert this opinion as "fact."

Where did this "fact" come from. Only person I have heard say anything about this was Gates. No one else supports this.

By the same token, only person who says otherwise is Crowley. No one else supports this. And, importantly, the DA refused to prosecute the charge which is so often an indication of either police misconduct, the fact that the arrested did not in fact commit a crime, or both.

This is really a case of he-said/he-said, I don't understand how any of you can be so certain one must be telling the truth and the other must be lying, particularly in light of how relatively plausible the two accounts are.

[BlownCamaro]

By the same token, only person who says otherwise is Crowley.



I would take the word of a cop over the word of a Harvard snob any day.

[QUENTIN]

I would take the word of a cop over the word of a Harvard snob any day.

That's fine, and I recognize anti-elitism and anti-intellectualism is strong in such circles. "Goddamn educated people and experts, always tellin' us our opinions are wrong!"

I don't mind you holding or stating that opinion, you're free to believe the cop all you want. I take issue however with anyone baselessly asserting their subjective opinion on the matter as incontrovertible fact.

[The Postmaster General]

I've been following the case and as far as I can tell, the facts are today what they were the day this came out. We have contradictory and subjective stories from Officer Crowley and Professor Gates, and I've yet to hear of any impartial third party witnesses coming out and saying anything one way or the other that might lend extra credence to either.


I think even the officer's official report still stinks of unprofessionalism, and the cop losing his shit. Like jackson13 says, it was a routine breaking and entering -- for the life of me, though, I don't get how that can make someone conclude: "Oh, it's a routine breaking and entering. OBVIOUSLY the way it ended meant it was handled the best way it could."

I'd seriously like to know everyone's experience with the police. I've dealt with emergency situation involving cops in the 100s of times, and I've seen police spit at, cussed out, come on to, all sorts of shit, threatened, and the idea that a cop escalated a situation based on "ya' momma" talk is a fucking joke and disgrace to exemplifying good citizenship.

[Bourne101]

So I guess Obama has invited Gates and Crowley to the White House for a beer on Thursday. Oh would I ever love to be a fly on the wall during that conversation. :D

[I Am Legend]

New controversy to debate.

Why isn't this case considered a hate crime?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom

[QUENTIN]

New controversy to debate.

Why isn't this case considered a hate crime?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom

From the wikipedia article you posted:

"There is absolutely no proof of a hate crime," said John Gill, special counsel to Knox County District Atty. Randy Nichols. "We know from our investigation that the people charged in this case were friends with white people, socialized with white people, dated white people. So not only is there no evidence of any racial animus, there's evidence to the contrary."[

Which takes that quote from: http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/premium/chi-murders_bdjun10,0,5653843.story

Crimes against people of a certain race perpetrated by people of another are not necessarily hate crimes, unless race played a factor in the crime. If I mug someone because they look rich and vulnerable, and it turns out that someone was gay, that doesn't make it a gaybashing hate crime, it's just assault and theft.

I don't know any facts of this case beyond what has been reported in a few news articles I've read previously and the Wikipedia article that reiterates them, but it seems there is nothing to suggest the fact that the victims were white and the perpetrators black is anything but coincidental or that their race motivated the crime.

There's a similar case of black-on-white rape/murder/torture where the hate crime nature of the incident is disputed, and I think it was a hate crime, the murder of Sgt. Jan Pietrzak and his wife Quiana by four Marines.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=6204853

In that case, there is evidence that the four Marines attacked Pietrzak specifically because he was a white guy married to a black woman and in addition to the money motivation, they resented this and it was why they so heinously tortured the couple. But not only do I not see evidence that the incident you posted is a hate crime, though it's certainly heinous, there appears to be by your own source sufficient evidence that it was not a hate crime. Whether it received less mainstream media attention than it may have if it was a white-on-black crime is a different story, but that has to do with journalistic sensationalism and sensitivity, not the motivation of the crime.

[QUENTIN]

Re: the Gates case

The Discrepancy
(http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/the-discrepancy.html)

"She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of Ware Street," - James Crowley (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html), in his police report.

“She didn’t speak to Sergeant Crowley at the scene except to say, ‘I’m the one who called,’ ” said the lawyer, Wendy J. Murphy. “And he said, ‘Wait right there,’ and walked into the house. She never used the word black and never said the word backpacks to anyone.” - from the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/us/28gates.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=crowley&st=cse).

Here's the transcript of the 911 phone call: http://www.nypost.com/seven/07272009/news/nationalnews/transcript_of_gates_911_call_181639.htm


So where did the idea of two black men with backpacks come from? Instead of two men with suitcases who the caller said might well be in their own home? I think we know.

As jackson pointed out, the woman who called never said the word "black" and never said anything about backpacks, in fact on the phone she seems very unsure whether the people she saw were breaking in or just lived there. She says that she didn't speak to the Officer when he showed up except to say "I'm the one who called" and he told her to "Wait right here" and approached the house. This is in direct contradiction of his police report. So we know for a fact that, at least on this issue, he was lying or wrong about what occured.

From Obsidian Wings (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/07/you-can-almost-always-judge-a-book-by-its-cover-except-when-you-cant.html):

Confirmation bias probably plays a role here, but: now that we have the actual transcript, it seems clearer than ever that Officer Sergeant Crowley was out of line in arresting Professor Gates. As Andrew Sullivan notes, you can't reconcile Crowley's report with either the tape or the witnesses. Crowley seems to have arrested Gates for being annoying rather than for any actual crime. Whether race played a role in the arrest is kinda secondary at this point: [B]The fundamental point is that cops shouldn't arrest a person who hasn't committed a crime. Otherwise the guy in a police uniform is a vigilante or a bully -- not a cop.

Which brings up another point. I value our public servants, including cops who put their lives on the line day in and day out. Police work is a tough job, with a dozen ways to fail for every one way to stand out as brilliant. And I'm a believer that singing the praises of our public servants should go further than just idle words on the internet. (That's one reason why I'm looking at a certificate from the local FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) lodge, thanking me for a donation that I just made to support one of their programs.)

Now, if you read the above paragraph out of the context of my posts on the Crowley-Gates affair, I guarantee that you'd peg me as someone who presumes that the police are telling the truth. A guy whom every prosecutor wants on his jury and every defense lawyer wants to strike. Indeed, didn't I admit in a prior post that one of (great) uncles is a retired police chief? The prosecutor thinks that she'll put a cop on the stand, and von will bring the rope for the hanging. Surely.

You'd be wrong. I presume almost the exact opposite about cops being truthful. Cops do a difficult job. I respect them a ton. But cops are human. And the very difficulties of the job make it inevitable that corners get cut. And it seems that corners definitely got cut in the Gates case. (That's about as polite as I can say it.) If you were to press me, I'd say that my best guess is that many cops lie about a lot of the small things and some cops lie about the big things as well -- because it makes their job easier, and it's easy for them to get away with a lie. (Q: As I said, in all of my experiences with the cops that have involved a police report, this has been the case. Sometimes the inaccuracies were minor things that simply made the cop's job easier or their story avoid inconsistencies, other times there were vital facts misreported or completely made up) Unless there's a tape (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/51196597.html?) [/i](Q: More evidence of police arresting citizens on false charges when their own gross misconduct is the only crime), who's going to call them on it? (Which is an argument for taping almost every interaction between cop and civilian, incidentally.)

Is that fair of me? To the individual cop who deserves to be judged on his or her own merits, no. So if you call me for jury duty, I'll try to put my bias aside. But there's also a lesson here about the limits of experience. You might be 90% right when you judge a book by its cover. When you take one look at me, for instance, and say: that dude likes cops. But that 10% -- that unexpected quirk, incident, or bias -- will almost always get you in the end.

But, y'know what? We've talked an awful lot about Crowley and Gates. Probably too much.

I agree with all of that, including the last line, but thought it important to note that there is now proof that Crowley's report is not an accurate accounting of what happened.

[jackson13]

Wanted to share this link about the story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090729/ap_on_re_us/us_harvard_scholar_caller


Out of all of the people involved in all of this bullshit, this woman is the only one I feel sorry for. She saw what she thought was a crime being committed and did the right thing by calling the police, and now she's been labeled a racist and called names and generally spat upon, even though she never did such a thing. Now she has to go through her life having been involved in all of this shit, and while going public like this may soften the racist label she has unrightfully earned, people will always view her as a racist from now on.

It reminds me a little bit of that episode of South Park where Randy blurts out "nigger" on tv and then gets labeled "one of those "nigger" guys" everywhere he goes afterwards, when he meant nothing by it to begin with.

[someguy]

I'm not liking the suggestion that Gates called the 911 caller a racist. I'm not saying that it's happening here but I've noticed through the media that it's heavily implied. Any labels put on this woman are just people accusing her. If you want proof, you can look at this interview (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-22/my-daddy-the-jailbird/full/).

We depend on the police—I’m glad that this lady called 911. I hope right now if someone is breaking into my house she’s calling 911 and the police will come! I just don’t want to be arrested for being black at home! I think this was a bit of an extreme reaction.

[jackson13]

I'm not liking the suggestion that Gates called the 911 caller a racist....


I dont think it was him. And she certainly didnt mean him. She says, in that story I just linked, that people are coming up to her on the street and calling her a racist, among other names. Not Gates.

[someguy]

I wasn't referring to her own personal experiences, just that the media and plenty of other people are implying that she's labelled as racist by Gates. We all know that he was the first one to accuse racism on the cop, so with all of this coverage people might assume that he also claimed the caller was racist. I'm just trying to clear the air on that and explain how he actually commended her for calling.

[QUENTIN]

In all the coverage I've read and seen of this incident, I haven't seen anyone say or imply the caller was racist. She did exactly the right thing and Crowley's actions have nothing to do with hers. Even if she had described the guys breaking in as two black males, I'm not sure how that would make things worse, it's not as though "black" is a racial slur or inappropriate way to describe black guys. She couldn't even see them well though, and suggested it may be their own house they were in, so she couldn't be more in the clear.

The article says "'People' called her racist" and "She was called racist 'on blogs'" without referencing any person, example, location, or source (Great job, AP! Jesus Christ). What blogs? Anyone to her face who somehow knew she was the caller? The idea that a random stranger saw her in person and somehow knew that she must have been the caller and yelled at her for racism seems odd and unlikely. Anonymous people certainly say really dumb shit on the Internet. There are at least several hundred thousand people up in arms convinced that Obama was born in Kenya, it's hard to fight stupid. But certainly no one remotely informed or responsible suggested Whalen was a racist, because nothing she did could be construed that way. Not only shouldn't she sweat it, but like a lot of the tangential shit to this story, this mostly sounds like a media manufactured narrative.

[Smarmy Douche]

The one thing about this hubbub that seems to me to be a gross oversight in the reporting of and perception of this story, is: Why didn't this woman know who he was?

This is something that should be talked about more in American society. On my street, I may not know my neighbors well, but I know them. I know their names, I'm friendly with them, and I know what they look like. Even in an upper-class neighborhood like theirs, this woman had no idea what one of her neighbors looked like.

This could have been a good opportunity for Know Your Neighbors editorials, but I guess it wasn't meant to be. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it would have been more valuable than a week of contrived racial debate.

By the way, if there's anything else to get out of this story, it's I'd rather have a drink with Gates anyway. Red Stripe, ahoy!

[echo_bravo]

By the way, if there's anything else to get out of this story, it's I'd rather have a drink with Gates anyway. Red Stripe, ahoy!

No way! Blue Moon all the way baby!!;)

Anyways, this story is getting waaay too much coverage. It was a case of miscommunication and thats about it.

I saw the Daily Show's take on the whole thing and thought it was funny and pretty much true.

[Jon Lyrik]

The one thing about this hubbub that seems to me to be a gross oversight in the reporting of and perception of this story, is: Why didn't this woman know who he was?

This is something that should be talked about more in American society. On my street, I may not know my neighbors well, but I know them. I know their names, I'm friendly with them, and I know what they look like. Even in an upper-class neighborhood like theirs, this woman had no idea what one of her neighbors looked like.

This could have been a good opportunity for Know Your Neighbors editorials, but I guess it wasn't meant to be. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it would have been more valuable than a week of contrived racial debate.

By the way, if there's anything else to get out of this story, it's I'd rather have a drink with Gates anyway. Red Stripe, ahoy!

Seriously.

[jackson13]

So this thing is apparently all put to rest because the 3 of them sat down over beers today.....


....except now Fox News has a problem with Obama because he asked for a Bud Light, and Budwieser, or, Annhauser Busch, is no longer owned by an American company. So they ripped him for not supporting America.......

.....yet didnt so much as even raise their voices over the fact that Gates ordered a Red Stripe, which is a fucking JAMAICAN beer.


I think I'm finally starting to get how these news outlets work. Finally.

[starcat]

This is totally getting out of hand!!! But I didnt know Budweiser wasnt an American beer though.

[jackson13]

But I didnt know Budweiser wasnt an American beer though.


A lot of people dont. And those who do, like myself, dont care.


Except for the douchebags at Fox News......

[starcat]

Oh I definately dont care, I do shots not beer... everyone just always acts like its the "all American beer"