Being White in Philly

Dungheap said:
Maybe instead I'll keep beating this here dead horse.
Click to expand...

Because you are too ignorant to realize that no one is forcing you to post here? Because YOU want to be done discussing this, everyone should fall in line?

How about you shut your ass for once and let people discuss it as they wish without all of your nonsense?
 
Superfreak said:
Because you are too ignorant to realize that no one is forcing you to post here? Because YOU want to be done discussing this, everyone should fall in line?
Click to expand...

Precisely. Also, too, are you too ignorant to realize that no one is forcing you to respond to the things that I post? Because it sure seems like it.


Superfreak said:
How about you shut your ass for once and let people discuss it as they wish without all of your nonsense?
Click to expand...

Shut my ass for once? What does the status of my sphincter have to do with it? Also, too, again, from the looks of things you were talking to yourself for a few posts there and, frankly, I thought you looked lonely. Sorry for trying to be a bud.
 
Superfreak said:
ANOTHER emotional outburst from you?

I was asking you if you were projecting your racist views onto the author. You weren't being critical, you were insinuating he was a racist that only cared about crimes against white people in the early part of the article. In reality he mentioned crimes against Temple students. YOU were the one that brought race into it.

Funny how you feel it is ok to question whether or not he was a racist based on his article, but it is not ok for anyone to dare question you for being racist with your words.



Again poor deranged lunatic, the title of his article was 'Being WHITE in Philly'. What part of that are you not comprehending. Of course he was going to interview white people. When discussing crimes against themselves, white people don't suddenly turn black. The point of his article was also not to show concern about crime, it was to get people to open up about race. To discuss the issue of race. Another point you cannot comprehend in your deranged state.
Click to expand...

Calm down, superfreak. Stop being so emotional! :)

Do we really need to keep rehashing what my point were/are? Is that what the discussion is now about?

I was being critical of the article. It only showed concern for white victims of crime. It STILL only shows that.

I know what the article was about. The article was not about what it's like to be a Temple student and was not impying that it's largely influenced by being a victim of crime. It was about about what it's like to be white and how a white persons perception of race is largely influenced by being a victim of crime.

Would you like to respond to these points or are you just going to keep trying to make this about me?
 
Superfreak said:
He injected race into it while calling the author an asshole and insinuating he was racist. Funny how liberals don't like the same treatment coming back at them. String whined about it right out of the gate and it was String that equated 'Temple students' to 'White people'. When I called him on it, his lame ass response was 'well the only Temple student he mentioned was his son' <---- very good example of desperation.

which is a cop out and you know it. If you can't point out examples, odds are you are simply providing a knee jerk reaction.
Click to expand...

Remain calm, superfreak!!!

I never once made any comment about the traits of Temple students. You did not call me on anything.

The article was about race. I did not inject that.

You are a liar and an idiot.
 
Superfreak said:
You realize the entire thread can still be viewed... don't you?

You whined about him only caring about crimes against white people. That is complete bullshit. Do you really need me to quote your actual original statement again? We can go back and do that, but it will only embarrass you further and cause another emotional outburst from you.



I guess you do need me to post that for you.
Click to expand...

Please, calm down! It's gonna be okay.

Here you go...

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
What a crappy article. I don't know if it is "yelling fire" but it is rather racist and a lousy piece of journalism.

The author starts with the apparent assumption that crime in and around Temple is only a problem or concern for white people. If his white son was not there it would not matter. He continues this throughout the article assuming all crime is the result of african americans and only harms white people or only matters when it does.

He uses several poorly sourced and/or investigated anecdotal incidents. In every one of them the perspective is only white and in negative encounters with blacks, the incident is blamed on the black person. If the depiction of blacks in the article is not of some shadowy criminal then they are too senstive of racism and there is no sign of empathy for the black person involved from the author. When his sources express empathy he challenges them and these are seemingly the only sources he did challenge.

Then he talks about his own racism and how he feels guilt. He tries, extra special hard, to be friendly towards blacks. Does he really think that's what they want? For him to act like a phoney? I have seen other white idiots play the I'm tough card. Why not just be yourself? Well, unless of course you are an asshole like the author.
Click to expand...

I did not say anything about Temple students. You did.

Now how about actually discussing the topic and the points raised?
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
Calm down, superfreak. Stop being so emotional! :)

Do we really need to keep rehashing what my point were/are? Is that what the discussion is now about?

I was being critical of the article. It only showed concern for white victims of crime. It STILL only shows that.

I know what the article was about. The article was not about what it's like to be a Temple student and was not impying that it's largely influenced by being a victim of crime. It was about about what it's like to be white and how a white persons perception of race is largely influenced by being a victim of crime.

Would you like to respond to these points or are you just going to keep trying to make this about me?
Click to expand...

This article was about being White in Philly, yet you keep whining about it only being from the perspective of White people. Do you understand your disconnect yet?
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
Please, calm down! It's gonna be okay.

Here you go...



I did not say anything about Temple students. You did.

Now how about actually discussing the topic and the points raised?
Click to expand...

No String, the author did. You then pretended he was only concerned about white people. That is completely false. The author stated it was dangerous for Temple students. You then proclaimed he only cared about white people. You misrepresented what he wrote. That was the point.
 
Superfreak said:
[/B]
The above is how you started your comments on the thread.

1) You call him a racist right out of the gate

2) You pretend he has an assumption that crime in and around Temple is only a concern for white people (when in fact he stated that it was a problem for Temple students... you were the one that put race into it.)

3) You then pretend he only cares about crime around Temple was because his WHITE son goes there (pure bullshit on your part)

4) You then give us this gem: "He continues this throughout the article assuming all crime is the result of african americans and only harms white people or only matters when it does" (he does no such thing... not in the least... again you project your bullshit onto him)
Click to expand...

Superfreak, you are going to have to calm down!

You are either a liar or have a serious problem with reading comprehension.

1. Out of the gate, I dismiss the Mayor's claims that the article was akin to "yelling fire" but state that it was rather racist. I am not making any comment about the author but CLEARLY commenting on the article.

2. I stated that the ARTICLE starts with the APPARENT assumption... In this context "apparent" means "seeming but not necessarily so." That is, I was saying that's the way I read it but was discounting.

3. Was this article about crime at Temple? No, it was not. The only relevance it had was that his son is white. You can continue to make a fool of yourself with the argument that I was just reading that into it, but don't attack me as a racist because you are too stupid to see what is clearly his intent.

4. That's EXACTLY what he did in the article. There is no mention or implication of any crime that is not committed by a black person or victimizing a white person.
 
Superfreak said:
No String, the author did. You then pretended he was only concerned about white people. That is completely false. The author stated it was dangerous for Temple students. You then proclaimed he only cared about white people. You misrepresented what he wrote. That was the point.
Click to expand...

I did not. The article was about a white Philadelphian's perception of race issues. He introduced the points about Temple because of his concerns that his son might be a victim of crime. The implication is clearly that it is relevant to a white persons perception of race issues because the criminals are black. The article was not about crime at or around Temple.

If you are going to continue this nonsense of trying to turn the focus on to me, then please tell us what your alternative is. What is the point of the discussion of crime around Temple other than what I have said?
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
Superfreak, you are going to have to calm down!

You are either a liar or have a serious problem with reading comprehension.

1. Out of the gate, I dismiss the Mayor's claims that the article was akin to "yelling fire" but state that it was rather racist. I am not making any comment about the author but CLEARLY commenting on the article.

2. I stated that the ARTICLE starts with the APPARENT assumption... In this context "apparent" means "seeming but not necessarily so." That is, I was saying that's the way I read it but was discounting.

3. Was this article about crime at Temple? No, it was not. The only relevance it had was that his son is white. You can continue to make a fool of yourself with the argument that I was just reading that into it, but don't attack me as a racist because you are too stupid to see what is clearly his intent.

4. That's EXACTLY what he did in the article. There is no mention or implication of any crime that is not committed by a black person or victimizing a white person.
Click to expand...


So you are going to get overly emotional yet again?

You did exactly as I said you did. You proclaim that you can clearly see his intent, yet you completely missed the intent of the article. That is a fact.
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
I did not. The article was about a white Philadelphian's perception of race issues. He introduced the points about Temple because of his concerns that his son might be a victim of crime. The implication is clearly that it is relevant to a white persons perception of race issues because the criminals are black. The article was not about crime at or around Temple.

If you are going to continue this nonsense of trying to turn the focus on to me, then please tell us what your alternative is. What is the point of the discussion of crime around Temple other than what I have said?
Click to expand...

Actually you did. I did not say the article was about crime around Temple. I stated that your proclamation that the author only cared about whites was wrong. Which it was.
 
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

What a crappy article. I don't know if it is "yelling fire" but it is rather racist and a lousy piece of journalism.

The author starts with the apparent assumption that crime in and around Temple is only a problem or concern for white people. If his white son was not there it would not matter. He continues this throughout the article assuming all crime is the result of african americans and only harms white people or only matters when it does.
Click to expand...


Againstring... the author started with no such assumption
You then pretend to know whether or not he would 'care' if his son wasn't going to Temple. You don't. You pulled that, like so much else, out of your ass.

You then pretend he only cares about Blacks being criminals and whites being victims. That too is complete bullshit.
 
cawacko said:
String, I apologize if I am missed labeling you but I believe you have stated before you are a libertarian. The mayor of Philadelphia has stated this article violates the First Amendment. I was just curious if you felt that way as well.
Click to expand...

I don't think he was saying the article violated the first amendment. I thought the Mayor's mention of the first was ill advised. The mayor has every right to speak against the article. It seems to me he is implying that he might take some other action and laying out an argument that a governmental response would not violate the first because he was comparing it to "yelling fire." He is wrong. He can denounce the article if he wants but that's all he can do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top