Theft/attack on St. Mark's

catwalkertexasranger said:

Armchair was right!! I have adopted his policy of being scared of blacks, browns and anybody w baggie clothes. Who knew it was so simple. I run everywhere and I have loads of extra time. I am also dropping the pounds. Everyone should try this.

did you actually read what i wrote instead of what bg wrote? lol I might not do grammar well, but some of you guys lack reading comprehension.

No where i said any of it.

While he isn't the most eloquent person on the planet, I believe that Armchair does have valid a point, even if we'd prefer him to be wrong.

We all make some assumptions based on a persons style of dress, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

While Ave Q has written a song about our society's fear of correlating any negative behavior to race, the cast could have just as accurately written a song which focuses on our hesitance to correlate negative behaviors to things like dress, race, religion, height, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

It's the classic correlation vs causation problem.

some of you turn a tragic personal event for a girl(good warning post too) into a another useless debate about race again.

It is unfortunate that race has played so large of a role in the conversation so far.

Let's look at what Emily wrote and see what else a "typical reader" might conclude based on the info:

Emily said:

Someone got punched and her phone stolen on St. Mark's just now, between Underhill and Washington. Thieves also tried to take her bag but she had it on crossways. I spoke to her right afterwards and she seemed like a very alert person who knew how to walk down the street at night, if YKWIM. This happened when other passersby were within eyeshot. Two teenage African-American males between 15 and 18, with white T-shirts and baggy shorts. I realize that's not much of a description, but keep your eyes open, and it can't hurt to keep your phone in your bag.

ETA: Since this site now uses those annoying "time ago" datestamps, I'll clarify that this was on Sunday night, 10:35pm.

a. Don't display your phone.

b. Don't display your phone at night.

c. Young males swipe phones.

d. A female alone at night was a crime victim; don't be alone at night if you are female.

e. All of the above

f. None of the above

....we all make such conclusions.

whynot_31 said:

It is unfortunate that race has played so large of a role in the thread so far.

Let's look at what Emily wrote and see what else a typical reader might conclude based on the info:

a. Don't display your phone.

b. Don't display your phone at night.

c. Young males swipe phones.

d. A female alone at night was a crime victim; don't be alone at night if you are female.

e. All of the above

f. None of the above

I can lead to you precisely where this thread went off the rails if you'd like.

Boygabriel said:

I like how you made this post AFTER you yet again tried to shoehorn in your arguments about how liberals are more offensive that conservatives, AND your arguments about the nobility of China's exploits in Africa.

(I'm not even sure how you managed that second feat)

Let me make political comments but don't make any political comments!

hey bg

/ insert foot in mouth again

No where I said anything about china did I?

Alot of non western countries are now investing in Africa. European and American writers, diplomats and aid groups don't like it. China might be the biggest, but there are others.

you also prove my paternalistic and high minded right again!

you sure know better than everyone else.

that's my point, it was about crime and warning etc.. and some how it turn into something else completely different.

AW-

I think many of us (myself included) were trained in college that calling someone a "racist" (or whatever) for merely pointing out correlations, somehow makes the world a better place.

However, it may have the opposite effect. In my view, when someone calls someone else a racist (or whatever), they make the inherent assumption that their opponent has placed too much weight on a specific variable (race, religion, sexual orientation, etc).

I have bolded too much weight to emphasize that we all put some weight on these variables as we go about our daily lives.

In a city such as NYC, I think a lot of us have no idea how much weight is the "right amount" to assign to one or more variables, and try the best we can to bumble thru life.

When I am patient enough to assume the person I am talking to is going thru the same process, it takes me a really long time to conclude they are assigning too much weight to a particular variable.

lol i'm being sarcastic towards bg and others. cause Its funny as hell. No where wrote any of what they think I wrote. They assume too much. as they say about assume, you make a ass out of you and me.

Boygabriel said:

Let me simplify things for you:

You tell other people not to inject race into a post that you somehow managed to tie to colonialism.

It's impressive.

As is your advice "if you see urban looking guys walk across the street, if they cross the street too run"

western liberal paternalism is still widely practice at home(anyone who questions liberal policies are racist) and abroad(anyone besides western countries who does something what they don't want is colonialism and racist).

so it's ok to talk about foreign policy in this thread, but not race?

do I have that correct?

You don't get to preach to me about liberal paternalism, but tell me that race is off-topic for this thread.

armchair_warrior said:

I thought I already answer you with this. Read again.

No, you didn't answer it at all. What you gave was the opposite of an answer and it allows you to make a specious claim but not have to back it up with any logic or justification.

I ask again: what does an "urban" person dress like?

Just found out that another woman had her phone snatched last night on Bergen and Underhill

worth a listen...

<p>The Contradiction from Sarah Cannon on Vimeo.</p>