How safe is Classon bet. Prospect St. Marks? (edited)
Comments
-
MHA I do think it was a bit of a leap to put the words, and I'm paraphrasing here, that 'rape is the fault of the victim' in WhyFi's virtual mouth
I too agree with WhyFi's post, but the difference is I didn't resort to inflammatory strawmen to say so, and then cry that everyone was ganging up on me when I was called out on it. That's the difference MHA -
CTK, I think it was a leap for WHYfi to say that it was the victim's fault that he was mugged. All things remaining the same except the victim's sex and the type of crime, if the victim was raped instead of mugged, by Whyfi's reasoning, it would still have been the victim's fault. My comment was made to shine light on what Whyfi's reasoning leads to. I don't think that was inflammatory, and quite honestly, I don't know what you mean when you use the term 'inflammatory strawmen'.
REGARDING THE TERIM 'inflammatory strawmen', I did a Google search and it led me straight to a Tea Party website accusing the political left and the Democratic party of distorting the Tea Party message by calling them 'racist', claiming that the Democrats were using inflammatory strawmen. Given my own skepticism of the Tea Party, and yes, because I do think that a healthy segment of the those who hold themselves to be card carrying members of the Tea Party ARE racist/ OR crazy, I am having a hard time appreciating your usage of the term to describe how I characterised Whyfi's comments.
Whyfi's hard -- and then softened -- argument alleges that mugging victims are partially culpable. I have great difficulty agreeing with that. In my mind that's like saying rape victims are partially culpable. That's like saying when I was mugged as a kid -- chased by a horde of young thugs on all occasions -- I was partially culpable. That's nonsense. I wasn't. The obvious truism as anyone walks down the street is to be careful; there are all sorts of predtators out there. But if you are a victim of crime, the last thing that is ever true are couch potato critiques from the peanut gallery hooting that you are partially to blame.
Again, this veers from the topic of whether or not Classon is a safe street to walk down. I guess kudos should be given to the querying poster because she is trying to ascertain risk before making a decision whether or not to live in that area. I feel as if what we are all doing is bringing what we think we know about each other into every new posting that one of us makes.
In addition, my comment, Whyfi's comments, Flexichick's comments -- these are all extraneous to the matter of discussion that falls under this banner. It's entertaining to read 'tit for tats' that we volley and receive, but is there some other way we can handle this? It seems to me that the reason this is not a PM conversation has more to do with the public viewing at our attempts to verbally blast each other. Can't we take the high road and make attempt to keep the thread clean by PM-ing differences of opinion having NOTHING to do with the subject matter of the thread? I mean, now we are debating whether or not I am launching 'inflammatory strawmen' (whatever that is), and whether or not we agree with Whyfi.
Flexichik mentioned my PM-ing her -- as if it was a bad thing. I did that in attempt to 'keep it clean'. Can we try to keep it clean? Above it has led to me being 'fucking pathetic', in her words. If I respond to that it will just go on and on and on. If I don't, I'm a pussy, I'm pussyfooting, I have no balls, I'm an asshole, or dick, -- and she's a bullshit artist, etc. Can't WE be better than this? I really want to. -
MHA when I said 'inflammatory strawmen' I mean you used a strawman (implying that WhyFi would agree that since victims of muggings bear some blame for being robbed, victims of rape bear some blame for being raped) to inflame. Your post was no better than the verbal attacks you denounce.
Even if you had posted your post in the form of a question, it would have added no value to the underlying theme of the thread. It was a passive aggressive and pointless implication of WhyFi's POV.
As I said before, I too disagreed with WhyFi's views, and yet none of my posts in here have been taken to task. Any guess why? Hint- the idea that it has to do with me having met a few posters once or twice has nothing to do with it. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge your inflammatory tactics and lambast others is laughable to me. Get real man.
In regards to the original topic of the thread, I think my original post said it best.... choosing a place to live is a big deal, and making a smart decision will require the investment of some time & effort. Go see the neighborhood at its worst (probably on a hot summer Saturday night) and see if you'd feel comfortable coming home there at 3 in the morning or w/e. Personally, I don't want to live in a place where people shoot guns in the air amidst 'civilians' in celebration of the new year, etc, if I can choose otherwise.
I'm almost certain with the behavior displayed here the OP has made a decision anyway, judging by the fact that she hasn't come back. -
The OP is not coming back, he/she deleted her account after all this.
-
CTK, for the record, in your post you stated that you AGREED with Whyfi...
I didn't understand what you meant, and now I do. Cool. Regarding HOW you chose to disagree, I don't think the fashion that I chose was either passive aggressive or inflammatory. In fact, isn't the opposite of being inflammatory being passive aggressive? Are you saying I was BOTH inflammatory AND passive aggresive?? Sheesh! Either way I'm screwed with you! LOL! Anyway, I don't see it. I don't agree with you.
Regarding you having met some of the posters. You obviously know Whyfi better than I do -- if he is one of the posters that you have met -- and I DO think that the rapport you have with him gives you a better understanding of him and what he means in his posts. I pointed out the weakness in his argument, and I don't think I should be morally condemned by you for doing so. I will say this, if I knew Whyfi -- I would be reluctant to take a strong stance on the issue and instead I would likely not respond. I think, for the record, the carousing you guys do with each other has perverted your ability to be candid -- for fear of upsetting/ offending. I've not been disrespectful to Whyfi, I haven't called him a pejorative, I've simply stated that I find his argument faulty, and shown how such is the case. -
I think you lost CTK back when you told him you had no respect for him because he dated a white woman.
....but I might be wrong. -
Well, believe it or not Whynot_31 -- to make my point about PM's -- CTK and I had or PM 'Camp David Accords' many moons ago, and believe it or not, that is water under the bridge.
But to concur with you, yes, those were hot days of inflammatory language and posture on my part, and if you have noticed amidst the language you deemed sophmoric, the tone I have taken with him (and others) is nowhere as heated. I have tried to stay courteous, and I've narrowed my laser beam scope only to burn those who launch a first attack. Not to say I'm purring like a tribble now -- indeed such is not the case -- but CTK and I have a great detente. -
What's the point of carrying on here? Mamacita said that the original poster is no longer a card carrying member of the Brooklynian, having left the building. Here we are squabbling about a point of argument extraneous to a discussion that the original poster no longer cares to participate in. Shouldn't we just end it?
If I recall, something similar happened on the now infamous 'Spitting' thread; after awhile the original poster was nowhere to be found, and we all were launching wads of venom at each other. I don't know protocol, but if such is the case, doesn't the O.P.'s absence make our debate/squabbling here moot? -
Maybe.
...but I talk about Ronald Reagan all the time on this website, and he isn't even alive anymore, much less posting on Brooklynian.
(Mr T, Mother Nature, and God do post on occasion though) -
Okay.
-
MHA wrote: CTK, for the record, in your post you stated that you AGREED with Whyfi...
You didn't state it simply, that's the whole reason people called you out.
I didn't understand what you meant, and now I do. Cool. Regarding HOW you chose to disagree, I don't think the fashion that I chose was either passive aggressive or inflammatory. In fact, isn't the opposite of being inflammatory being passive aggressive? Are you saying I was BOTH inflammatory AND passive aggresive?? Sheesh! Either way I'm screwed with you! LOL! Anyway, I don't see it. I don't agree with you.
Regarding you having met some of the posters. You obviously know Whyfi better than I do -- if he is one of the posters that you have met -- and I DO think that the rapport you have with him gives you a better understanding of him and what he means in his posts. I pointed out the weakness in his argument, and I don't think I should be morally condemned by you for doing so. I will say this, if I knew Whyfi -- I would be reluctant to take a strong stance on the issue and instead I would likely not respond. I think, for the record, the carousing you guys do with each other has perverted your ability to be candid -- for fear of upsetting/ offending. I've not been disrespectful to Whyfi, I haven't called him a pejorative, I've simply stated that I find his argument faulty, and shown how such is the case.
And as far as any "rapport" between posters, I see these guys once every 2 years. Hardly enough to say we're buddies. And in any case that's a pretty weak ad hominem. Every time someone disagrees with you, it's not because your ideas are invalid; it's because there's something wrong with them. Everyone else, from wildly varying political and personal backgrounds puts said differences aside to conspire against MHA. You gotta admit, it's a funny pattern. -
I'll admit the pattern is funny, even if MHA doesn't.
Some people like watching people struggle, others help them out. I'm the latter.
MHA, it must be tough to continually try convince people "I'm not like that anymore". -
CTK stated, "Every time someone disagrees with you, it's not because your ideas are invalid; it's because there's something wrong with them. Everyone else, from wildly varying political and personal backgrounds puts said differences aside to conspire against MHA"
CTK, I am not clear on your post above; to correct/respond to you, whenever someone disagrees with me, it's NOT because their ideas are invalid, it's simply because they DISAGREE. Are you saying that when people disagree with me, that automatically means that I think that there is something WRONG with their ideas/opinions? In essence, I am not clear on what you are saying. Also, did you agree with Whyfi or disagree? You have stated both. I am not clear on your preceding arguments because you have not made that clear to me.
You say something is a 'pretty weak ad hominem'. Are you referring to Whyfi's characterising of me as a pussy? Does it matter how STRONG the ad hominem is? So it's okay to call someone a weak pejorative but not a strong one? Is't the presence of ad hominem whether weak or strong a breach of polite conversation and an invitation to name calling?
I think I am pretty clear: I think there is something wrong with HOW people choose to express that they disagree. It's cool to disagree. But you should say WHY. That's what RATIONAL discourse is all about. It's uncool to disagree, and call someone an epithet -- and that be your rationale. If anything that is what I pointed out. I disagreed with Whyfi and he calls me a pussy. I disagree with Flexichick and she implies that dick or asshole would better suffice; pussy does me too much justice.
You say that it's amusing to think that I think there is a 'conspiracy' against me. Here we are me, you and others, we are NOT talking about Classon Avenue being safe. Instead. one by one, all of you guys are having a public debate with me about something having NOTHING to do with the subject matter. Instead of PM-ing and dealing with it privately, you guys are accusing me of being paranoid, and a hypocrite, and I am responding to the contrary that I am neither. I have said repeatedly, 'hey, why are we even talking about this? The OP has left the building!' Yet here you and others are still making attempt to say, in essence, that MHA whines that he's being ganged up on. Dude, why are we even having this discussion? We have no moved away from Classon Ave, away from Whyfi. We are no on MHA Avenue talking about MHA. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy. I would just say that you are using this forum as a means of indulging in some sort of critique of MHA. Move on. Argument done. OP doesn't give a damn anymore. Why are we talking about MHA now? Believe me, I am having a great laugh about this as well. -
How does the saying go? Even if you win an argument on the internet, you're still a retard
-
I don't really understand how this thread disintegrated into charges of racism and more, but, regarding the original discussion, many posters agreed with the gist of MHA's posts. WiFi's posts came off as blaming the mugging victim, and many posters called WiFi on that, including the man who originally offered up his experience of being mugged. Frankly, I was appalled, although I bit my tongue and tried to offer up a logical appeal to an attitude that I thought as a society we were largely beyond.
I have noticed throughout this thread that the same voices are crowding out an alternative viewpoint (in this case, I use that term "alternative" with irony since I still believe that most Americans no longer accept that a victim can be blamed). As I said, if I was a victim of a violent incident in this neighborhood, I would not have risked offering up my experience knowing that I was likely submitting myself to reshaming. MHA is the lone contender who continues to debate this point, as other oppositional voices have dropped out of the "discussion".
If the true intent of this forum is to provide and support community, then respect needs to be shown for alternate points of view. I reiterate: MHA is not the only one who disagreed with the tone of the posts made; he is simply the only one left standing. Obviously, as a newcomer, I don't know the history between members of this group, but, given what has gone on here, I imagine that "discussion" has taken a similar course in other threads. -
I think we have to talk about something, that's why we are here.
As we have established over and over, everyone agrees that there are a lot of things one can do to minimize their risk of getting shot.
Like a broken CD, I continually advise people that strangers rarely shoot strangers, and that everyone should remain a stranger to people who are likely to shoot them.
I follow this advice by avoiding annoying the idle locals.
I also look at the occupations of people who are usually are getting shot, and proactively avoid those occupations.
...let's see, another thing I do is look at what time people are often getting shot, and stay inside beforehand.
It isn't a fool proof system, but it is one that has served me well. ....both on and off Classon Avenue.
Hey, I bet I could create a similar checklist that would prevent a Brooklynian poster from being attacked by others!
Let's see:
1. Am I about to post something that I am writing to deliberately provoke people? If "yes", do not post.
2. Am I about to speak on behalf of a group of people, or state that some view is widely held by a group of people? If "yes", do not post.
3. Am I asking a question not because under the guise of wanting an answer from the group, but instead actually want to give myself cover for a crazy tangent? If "yes", do not post.
Maybe another analogy will help.
...you know how politicians always avoid annoying old people? They do it because old people have all kinds of time on their hands, and they seem to use all this time to vote and write nasty letters.
Although much younger, the frequent posters of Brooklynian are remarkably similar. We have all kinds of time on our hands.
Some us can even write coherent sentences, and lodge complaints.
...and, if you get our attention, we will gang up on you. Remember, avatar is only a very thin veneer.
...experience has shown that anyone can track down.
Like Classon avenue, there are many ways to stay safe. "Avoid pissing off the bored, crazy locals" might be the best piece of advice you get.
...afterall, this board has very little sympathy for people for posters who claim to be "victims" when they are actually are not. -
I never made a charge of racism, for the record. I compared Flexichick's reasoning to that OF a racist: Just as stupid. She didn't get the analogy. It's pretty clear.
Whyfi's comments above state how he views what he thinks I do. He thinks I deliberately say things to elicit angry response. That's bullshit. I say what I think. I have said many times here that I am indifferent to the opinions of others when I write here. I try to remain within the parameters of respect, and where someone makes an allegation that I showed disrespect or callousness, I ask them where it exists, and I apologize when I see the point, and I don't apologize when I simply don't see it.
Regarding his number 3, I have no idea what he's talking about -- if he is referring to me. The craziest thing I have ever said on the Brooklynian is that I've seen UFO's, and the irony is that practically no one (save for Hamilton I think) had anything critical to say about that! LOL!
I make it clear. When when whitefolks are showing their asses, I say, 'you whitefolks are showing your asses', and I truly don't think I need to gauge how I say that where I think it needs to be said -- as long as I make that point within the parameters of respect. When I do this, folks like Whynot are quick to label the act as that of a provocateur, and that is his right. Thankfully folks can read what I've written and decide for themselves.
Anyone with half a brain can look at all of what I have written (an indeed the threads that I have started) and can gauge for themselves whether or not I see myself as victim as he alludes, or not. Whether what I say adds to the quality of this site, or not. He is like so many here, throwing out words without anything to back them up, with the hopes that - like Hitler said, if you say something long enough people will think that it's true.
In the corporate world this is describes as 'death of a thousand cuts'. Blackfolks who work in corporate America understand this all to well. One of your peers perceives your ability to call them on their bullshit as possessing an 'attitude problem', or essentially, speaking 'out of your place'. After awhile, when you do this often enough as soon as you inhale to speak, whitefolks say 'oh gawd', there he goes again,' and they tune you out. When Orwell wrote in Animal Farm the refrain, 'Four legs good, two legs bad!' -- and had the SHEEP bleating this out over and over, this is the point he was making.
The problem here is that whitefolks aren't used to Black men telling them that they are wrong; it fucks up their whole identity dynamic: Henry Louis Gates isn't supposed to talk back to a cop; O.J. isn't supposd to kill a white woman -- AND get away with it; Those three basketball players weren't supposed to cannily make more money than god and excise the white man from their deals; Tiger should't be banging all of those whitegirls and get away with it; MHA isn't supposed to be telling whitefolks and -- the brothers who love them -- how a Black man feels; in fact, unlike the Jews, or any other group of people historically oppressed by whitefolks via de jure and de facto means, unless I am a reverend in a church, or on the street with a perm, or in the NAACP, I can't speak for MY PEOPLE.
You have some nerve....
Thus the name calling. Listen, believe it or not, scientifically, when you use a pejorative to describe someone else, you do MORE damage to YOURSELF, than the person you describe. You are sullying YOUR experience of the world -- as it occurs in your mind. It only hurts the other if the other believes the pejorative. So much of what we all say here is couched in ANGER, and practically little attempt is made to really works things out; to come to some common understanding. -
thus the tuning out.
...I'm not sure the damage you have done to your avatar can be repaired. -
Hmmm, let's see:
Nope. My avatar is still humming like a well-oiled machine. Hold on: Yeah, it is. Here it?
"MHA, booMHAyay, MHA, booMHAyay! MHA, booMHAyay!"
Gotcha! :afro: -
MHA wrote: I've not been disrespectful to Whyfi, I haven't called him a pejorative, I've simply stated that I find his argument faulty, and shown how such is the case.
Strictly speaking, CTK's right -- your argument was a "straw man," not by its essence but by its tone.
Had you said, "Whyfi, would you then also agree that a rape victim has it coming?" rather than purporting to offer us Whyfi's view on the subject, it would have come off differently and a lot of hubbub would have been avoided.
That said, I don't think it's an invalid way to present an argument in the sense that it warrants people jumping down your throat and calling you names. It just leaves you open for the obvious counter that your statement is presumptive and inflammatory, at which point you could have easily backpedaled to the safer position asking Whynot what he meant (or resorting to a mere 'slippery slope' fallacy, for the rest of you aspiring undergrads).
Either way, the fact that people are liable to pile up on you here probably does stem from your inclination to go out of your way to call them out to their face in a sometimes unfair manner more than it does from you not being "known."
That'll set some people against you, not because they don't want to "debate honestly", but because your tactics can be excessively brutal to people who are effectively strangers.
The mask of the avatar works both ways. It lets you keep your anonymity, but also removes any sympathy you might get from those who know you personally not to be as big of an asshole as you might appear online
-
humming to oneself is frowned upon.
Why do you tempt people to out you? -
Oh jeez, what the fuck is this?
You're all assholes. -
whynot_31 wrote: humming to oneself is frowned upon.
In case you didn't know, "Carnivore" actually stands for "Come and read new innovative voices on regional events."
Why do you tempt people to out you? -
MHA wrote:
This is where you start to lose your audience. "whitefolks"? who talks like that?
I make it clear. When when whitefolks are showing their asses, I say, 'you whitefolks are showing your asses', and I truly don't think I need to gauge how I say that where I think it needs to be said -- as long as I make that point within the parameters of respect. When I do this, folks like Whynot are quick to label the act as that of a provocateur, and that is his right. Thankfully folks can read what I've written and decide for themselves.
If I went walking around saying "blackfolks" and other such 'diet' epithets, people would assume that what I really meant was much worse, and I couldn't blame them.MHA wrote:
You can do better than comparing your adversaries to Hitler. That's Tea Party material.
Anyone with half a brain can look at all of what I have written (an indeed the threads that I have started) and can gauge for themselves whether or not I see myself as victim as he alludes, or not. Whether what I say adds to the quality of this site, or not. He is like so many here, throwing out words without anything to back them up, with the hopes that - like Hitler said, if you say something long enough people will think that it's true.
Shape up.MHA wrote:
Maybe what they're actually calling you on is your inability to get your point across in a way that's not patently offensive?
In the corporate world this is describes as 'death of a thousand cuts'. Blackfolks who work in corporate America understand this all to well. One of your peers perceives your ability to call them on their bullshit as possessing an 'attitude problem', or essentially, speaking 'out of your place'. After awhile, when you do this often enough as soon as you inhale to speak, whitefolks say 'oh gawd', there he goes again,' and they tune you out. When Orwell wrote in Animal Farm the refrain, 'Four legs good, two legs bad!' -- and had the SHEEP bleating this out over and over, this is the point he was making.
In corporate America, I've even seen this happen to other whitefolks. They usually blame someone else for it, too (sometimes, it's the blackfolks they blame. It's a crazy world.)MHA wrote:
Now you've gone beyond the pale. A detractor with a straw man might say, "White ladies, MHA has no sympathy for you if you're murdered by a black ex-football player. You whitefolk had it comin'."
The problem here is that whitefolks aren't used to Black men telling them that they are wrong; it fucks up their whole identity dynamic: Henry Louis Gates isn't supposed to talk back to a cop; O.J. isn't supposd to kill a white woman -- AND get away with it; Those three basketball players weren't supposed to cannily make more money than god and excise the white man from their deals; Tiger should't be banging all of those whitegirls and get away with it; MHA isn't supposed to be telling whitefolks and -- the brothers who love them -- how a Black man feels; in fact, unlike the Jews, or any other group of people historically oppressed by whitefolks via de jure and de facto means, unless I am a reverend in a church, or on the street with a perm, or in the NAACP, I can't speak for MY PEOPLE.
Come on, MHA, come back down to earth. You spend far more time dwelling on this question of oppression than it's worth, and it clearly takes you off the rails. I'm willing to bet it's the source of most of your disagreements with people in "corporate America," and those disagreements are probably self-reinforcing since they're forced by you to be drawn across race lines.
And the most ridiculous aspect of this is when you assert your claim to be allowed to "speak for your race". You can speak about your experience, but that's about it. It's up to the beholder to decide whether you're representative in their eyes. And odds are, you're not the first 'blackfolk' they'll have encountered.
You're claiming more than you're entitled to, and that's not because you're not Jewish. I'd laugh at a Jew who claimed that, too. -
Carnivore wrote: [quote=whynot_31]humming to oneself is frowned upon.
In case you didn't know, "Carnivore" actually stands for "Come and read new innovative voices on regional events."
Why do you tempt people to out you?
And here I thought it was the initials of your name.
"Chris Angelica-Ray-Naomi-Valone-Ormunum-Richards-Erikson"
I'd been imagining that you'd were the result of a long line of people that hyphenated their name each time they got married since 1540.
Thankfully MHA's is much shorter.
...apparently was no unstoppable desire to hyphenate in his family. -
Eastbloc -- thank you. Your argument makes sense to me. I might have to copy and post a portion of what what you said here on the AVATAR thread. It adds to the argument of what disadvantage engaging through an AVATAR may cause. Despite what others may think, my attempt here is to create threads, and incite meaningful dialogue about the subject matter under the rubric of the subject matter.
Agreed, my tone with whyfi's comment was purposely confrontational. I stated later that having been a mugging victim, I took umbrage with any notion that it was my fault. To be quite frank, while I think rape is a crime of power moreso than sex, I also think being mugged can also fit into the same category - moreso about the power thrill than about the money -- though by far not as horrendous a crime. I have heard thugs speak of their violent acts with a certain glee that I think reveals their power tripping. Getting mugged is traumatic, especailly when there is undue violence involved. It was hard to stay on the fence and think about how what I think might sound to Whyfi. It was hard to be considerate of him after he said what he said. He was being inconsiderate to anyone who has ever been a victim of a physically violent mugging. I didn't find his ''it's your fault rhetoric'' palatable, and I wanted to express a sentiment that would make him feel the same way.
For clarity, when I was mugged, I didn't see my muggers, and it happened where I lived. EVERYTIME I got off the train I was a nervous wreck. Everytime I went anywhere I felt like a Marine from the movie Blackhawk down. It was no doubt all in my head, but the trauma of a beatdown will do that to you. I lived in a neighborhood no doubt observed by the folk who mugged me. It was terrifying. So yeah, 'strawman' indeed.... I think I speak for all those whom have similar experiences that it's sort of weird being critiqued for calling Whyfi on his statement when what he was saying was so incredibly bizaare, and unrealistic.
That being said eastbloc, I remain the same. Indifferent to naysayers and people who would rather bleat than think. Once I've discerned that they're just 'baah-baahing whitesheep' I call them that and keep it moving. Ishmael Reed said writing is fighting; how true that is.
And for those who want to 'out' me. Now there is an exercise of power I truly have no control over, and would be patently unfair, and ironically make my point..... Also, what a choice of words. To be 'outed' is to be revealed for who you truly are -- as if I am in some sort of closet pretending to be someone else. I am not. I live my life honestly. It's weird. People whom I don't know are dying to find out who I am so that they can tell other people, and here I am not giving a damn to know who they are. Whynot_31, the question YOU should ask YOURSELF is why are you so concerned with who I am? Why is THAT so important to YOU? What do you think you gain when you have that information, or when you act on it? Power? Seriously, why would YOU want to do that?
If you know who I am I would ask that you don't say it. I have said things here that I truly think would endanger my LIFE. I would hope despite your distaste either for me, my opinions or ideas, you would respect my right to privacy, my identity, and ultimately my life. Don't do it sir. -
MHA-
As I, and others, have asked here before:
Why do you state things here in a manner that you would not in real life? Most of us don't and we ask that you give us the same courtesy.
....I do not threaten people in real life, or online.
I am simply pointing out, that you simultaneously assume you can annoy people without any reprisal, yet anyone with a brain could figure out who you are.
Although I don't bother to get offended by what people say to me online and you have not offended me in the slightest, you seem to expect courtesy from others after having offended them.
Lots of people here have brains, and you are one of them. ...use it.
Treat people with respect in life and online. ...they might no only "not out you", they might listen to you in return.
P.S. Identical advice might work for you in real life as well. ....with respect comes respect. -
Eastbloc -- Blackfolks talk like that. They say 'whitefolks' all the time! Weirdly, you take issue of my describing white people as 'whitefolks', but you make NO same protest for me calling Black people 'Blackfolks'... You know, Stanley Crouch still uses the word 'Negro' in almost everything he writes. When I am talking to 'my people' and they are talking about 'white folks' they say 'whitefolks'. when they are talking about 'black folks' they say 'blackfolks'. Unfortunately sometimes they allso say 'niggers' -- but that's another story...
In the 'corporate america' sentences the point I was trying to make is that there is so little room for Black dissent. And when there is Black dissent instead of examing the argument for its merits, time is spend characterizing Black dissent; characterizing HOW something is said. So, the points of issue are lost within the tangle of the Black person responding to allegations of offensive speech. When is saying 'blackfolks' and 'whitefolks' considered epithets? I don't mean it that way at all. I think its usage is subversive -- and I purposely do that to make a number of points.
I have no idea what you mean when you use the word 'diet' above. I wholly disagree with your contending that I talk about 'oppression' too much. Here we are at least half of the Black men in the city are unemployed and oppression isn't a word that has any merit? Interesting. I wholly disagree. It has a great deal of merit. Just because someone doesn't want to hear the word that doesn't mean that it holds no validity. Not that I go about talking about the Black man and oppression. I spend more time critiquing my brothers than I do critiquing whitefolks! Jeepers, give me more credit!
Regarding what you said about a white woman being raped by a black man - now THERE'S a leap of logic. I made no comment that would lead to that allegation at all. I've in the past spoken about Black angst, and how that would lead to socially unproductive behavior, but I have nothing I have said could lead to the extrapolating that I think it's okay for Black people to commit violent acts against white people. I have said that Black antI-social behavior makes sense to me given where they are existentially -- that has been interpreted as me saying 'it's okay for Black people to commit violent acts', but such was not the case. You want to see strawmen? Go back and read the spitter thread again. It's filled with 'em.
To bring up the Avatar and anonymity argument here. I received PM messages emails and even face to face comments from those who are privy to the Brooklynian threads I have written on agreeing PRIVATELY what they are RELUCTANT to say publicly even under the guise of their avatar. The reason they don't respond at all, or don't adapt the tone I do is the sense that there will be some social consequence to doing so. Reading Whynot_31's post about tempting people to out me puts this all in perspective.
Lastly, I wasn't saying that my detractors are like Hitler eastbloc, I said that the propaganda tactics Hitler used to get people to see the Jews negatively are being used here. And yes, I truly believe that. Name calling name calling name calling; It's a constant. The power of propaganda is to cover truth with repetition of how you want the truth altered. This is why I am tireless in responding to those who make attempt to mis-characterise me (Well, to be honest, I grow weary). -
avoid making others weary.
....many of us who work with sensitive information and hold unpopular opinions enjoy this forum, just keep in mind that it is not everything you want it to be.
In some cases it seems you've wanted it to be a place where you act one way, and be treated another.
yes, you have gotten better.
no, you can't stop now.
yes, you might have to grow further to get those in the room to listen to you.
its hard work. A lot of us have done similar work. -
Whynot_31, I won't lie: what you said up there reads to me that I need to 'know my place'. It's after 12, so the immunity for us all have ended. It's the first time that I have wanted to breach it with gusto.
Man, this is like the THIRD time one can impute by what you have written about me or to me that 'I should know my place.' You use the word word 'respect' as it would be used expectantly by the Queen of England demanding feudal protocol and thusly a curtsey or a meek bow.
Your comments seem to imply that I go around in the real world disrespecting people. You so obviously do NOT know me -- even if you do know my name; seriously dude.
I get the impression that your image of Black men is something you saw in a Mel Gibson buddy cop movie, or some other crap Hollywood spits out to reinforce Brothers as buffoons. I'll say this in the sense that Greg Tate described Denzel's usage of the word 'nigger' in that movie where he plays a crooked cop (and gets an Oscar to boot): MHA Nigger, you don't know me.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds