OT: I was almost mugged last night
Aaron
bit smarter, I would have been mugged and you'll see why I say that,
but all things considered I'm glad it turned out the way it did.
I was at the train station waiting for my wife to pick me up (other
car in the shop). It was twilight, not yet full dark, and I was
standing on the sidewalk of the main drive up to the station, right
where rush hour traffic was going by and heading into the station.
Seemed safe enough to me, even given this area. I was calling my wife,
trying to find out where in the heck she was since by my reckoning she
should have already gotten to the station.
I saw 3 black kids (19-20 maybe?) walking down the sidewalk, and
stepped toward the street a bit to let them by. As the one I will
refer to as the "leader" was passing by, he asked me for a cigarette
using slang (I think he said "jackie") or something like that. I asked
what he meant, and he said "a smoke" and made a hand gesture with his
right hand that said the same.
I said "Sorry, man, I don't smoke" with a smile, and then noticed that
he was pulling a gun on me. It was a small revolver, maybe 4-5 inches
long, and only an inch or so wide, maybe an inch-and-a-half. It was
metallic gray in color, except for a brown wooden or plastic handle.
He said "Give me your wallet, nigger", which struck me as odd
(temporarily) given that I'm white, but there are many justifications
a black person could have for using such an epithet, I suppose. I
said, in disbelief, "Right here next to the street?" with another
smile and a clipped laugh, and he said "Man, I don't give a FUCK!"
At that point, one of his cohorts slapped my cell phone out of my
hand, and still not really thinking, I just bent over and picked it up
again. As I was picking it up, the leader said "You got 5 seconds",
and at the same time I noticed that traffic was starting to come down
the street again (lights had changed). So, I dashed across the street
(stupid!), with my wallet, cell phone, and laptop unstolen, towards a
parking lot that USED to be attended.
To my dismay, it wasn't attended, and there was a huge sign saying so
that could be read a long way off!
I turned around, finally starting to feel fear (no idea why I didn't
earlier, because I certainly wasn't in shock. If anything, I was
dubious that I was really in danger. The gun looked like it could be a
cap gun, and maybe I reacted as such. Plus, the showing off right on
the street, with the gun in my face, and the letting me pick up my
cell phone again seemed odd) but they had scampered off. Eventually I
got up the courage to run back to the station, still not knowing where
my wife was (darn it). I ran into the station, to "cover my tracks" a
bit, then walked out a different exit a few minutes later.
My wife was there in the lot, with the kids of course, and we
proceeded home where I finally called the cops. I needed to tell her
the story first, and get away from my kids' hearing (more my wife's
insistence than my own). The cop chastised me a teeny bit for not
calling 911 as soon as the danger was past (an hour was gone instead),
and honestly I didn't think, once I'd escaped and so had they, that
911 was the right option anymore. I didn't want too much hassle, since
I was safe and I am NEVER going to expose myself like that again.
At any rate, she claimed they would have surrounded the area, gotten
another gun off the street, etc. etc., but I wasn't so sure it would
have gotten that response. She also told me that there are snub-nosed
revolvers of exactly the dimensions I described, so I could have
easily been shot in the back with what could have been a real gun. I
still think they were just doing it "on a lark" and my wallet would
have been a bonus, but I felt even more stupid then.
At any rate I'm fine, still thinking about what this all means, and
happy to be alive and well for the holidays.
Chucky & Janica
- there was this guy, or something, called Aaron <aaro...@msn.com>,
and they made us all feel better by saying the following stuff:
>Well, Friday night I was almost mugged at gunpoint. If I were just a
>bit smarter, I would have been mugged and you'll see why I say that,
Hee hee, it's more fun to come up with my own scenarios.
"Hand over the wallet or I'll bust a cap in your ass!"
"Oh ... it's just a cap gun?" *walks away*
*****
"Give me all your money!"
"Oh no ... here's everything I have in my wallet, wait here and I'll
go to the ATM ... oh yeah, wait, I'll have to go into the bank and
withdraw the rest. Oh, and I have some in a mattress at home..."
*wanders*
*****
"Got the time, bitch?"
"Um ... yeah ... uh, which one is the big hand pointing at?"
And so on.
>but all things considered I'm glad it turned out the way it did.
So am I, don't get me wrong. I'm glad you're okay. Must have been lots
and lots of not-fun.
>I saw 3 black kids (19-20 maybe?) walking down the sidewalk, and
>stepped toward the street a bit to let them by.
And the relevance of their colour is...?
>As the one I will
>refer to as the "leader" was passing by,
Technically, the leader of a pack of black negro coloured people is
"bull" or "dominant he-nigger".
>At that point, one of his cohorts slapped my cell phone out of my
>hand, and still not really thinking, I just bent over and picked it up
>again.
Gold.
*dominant he-nigger knocks phone out of Sanders's hand again*
"Oops ... there it goes again." *bends down to pick it up*
"Boy, have you lost your mind?" *knock*
"Oops." *bend*
>As I was picking it up, the leader said "You got 5 seconds",
>and at the same time I noticed that traffic was starting to come down
>the street again (lights had changed). So, I dashed across the street
>(stupid!), with my wallet, cell phone, and laptop unstolen, towards a
>parking lot that USED to be attended.
Should have totally whopped him with the laptop. That's what Vamps
would have done.
You need to ask yourself, in these situations, WWVD?
>The cop chastised me a teeny bit for not
>calling 911 as soon as the danger was past (an hour was gone instead),
>and honestly I didn't think, once I'd escaped and so had they, that
>911 was the right option anymore.
And seriously, what were they going to do?
"Yeah, three black kids ... I don't know, late teens, early twenties
... uh, you know, like, black. Dark brown skin, thick lips, flat
noses, tightly-curled hair, sort of poor-looking."
"Oh, them. We know them by name, we'll go right by and pick them up."
>I was safe and I am NEVER going to expose myself like that again.
A good idea, but I have to reiterate, their skin colour had nothing to
do with this. You can avoid dangerous situations without reinforcing
racist stereotypes.
>At any rate, she claimed they would have surrounded the area, gotten
>another gun off the street, etc. etc., but I wasn't so sure it would
>have gotten that response.
I find it hard to believe myself.
>At any rate I'm fine, still thinking about what this all means, and
>happy to be alive and well for the holidays.
People are generally shit. It pays to remember it.
Glad you're okay, though. Could have been a whole lot worse. You got
very lucky.
C&J
--
Beware of Trojans, they're complete smegheads.
- 13 & 13b of 12, the CMM Collective.
- www.afrj-monkeyhouse.org
Aaron
wrote:
> Once upon a time - for example, Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:06:46 -0800 (PST)
> and they made us all feel better by saying the following stuff:
>
> >Well, Friday night I was almost mugged at gunpoint. If I were just a
> >bit smarter, I would have been mugged and you'll see why I say that,
>
> Hee hee, it's more fun to come up with my own scenarios.
>
> "Hand over the wallet or I'll bust a cap in your ass!"
> "Oh ... it's just a cap gun?" *walks away*
>
> *****
>
> "Give me all your money!"
> "Oh no ... here's everything I have in my wallet, wait here and I'll
> go to the ATM ... oh yeah, wait, I'll have to go into the bank and
> withdraw the rest. Oh, and I have some in a mattress at home..."
> *wanders*
>
> *****
>
> "Got the time, bitch?"
> "Um ... yeah ... uh, which one is the big hand pointing at?"
>
> And so on.
LOL
> >but all things considered I'm glad it turned out the way it did.
>
> So am I, don't get me wrong. I'm glad you're okay. Must have been lots
> and lots of not-fun.
Indeed. I think I'm handling it well, though, considering.
> >I saw 3 black kids (19-20 maybe?) walking down the sidewalk, and
> >stepped toward the street a bit to let them by.
>
> And the relevance of their colour is...?
My, how predictable. Do you know, out of 30 people on various ngs, and
not all Americans, you are the first to make a big deal out of that?
And yet, I knew you would pick up on that.
Would it also be a problem if I gave that piece of information to the
police?
Besides, if I didn't say that, you can't picture them at all. Now you
can: they're black. See how helpful that is?
> >As the one I will
> >refer to as the "leader" was passing by,
>
> Technically, the leader of a pack of black negro coloured people is
> "bull" or "dominant he-nigger".
And you wouldn't have been able to make these jokes if I hadn't told
you their color.
> >At that point, one of his cohorts slapped my cell phone out of my
> >hand, and still not really thinking, I just bent over and picked it up
> >again.
>
> Gold.
>
> *dominant he-nigger knocks phone out of Sanders's hand again*
> "Oops ... there it goes again." *bends down to pick it up*
> "Boy, have you lost your mind?" *knock*
> "Oops." *bend*
'zactly. LOL
> >As I was picking it up, the leader said "You got 5 seconds",
> >and at the same time I noticed that traffic was starting to come down
> >the street again (lights had changed). So, I dashed across the street
> >(stupid!), with my wallet, cell phone, and laptop unstolen, towards a
> >parking lot that USED to be attended.
>
> Should have totally whopped him with the laptop. That's what Vamps
> would have done.
>
> You need to ask yourself, in these situations, WWVD?
I did. I didn't ask myself WWVSHWD, mind you. I would've beaten them
all within an inch of their lives if I did that.
Instead, I asked myself WWVD, and I ran like a little girl.
> >The cop chastised me a teeny bit for not
> >calling 911 as soon as the danger was past (an hour was gone instead),
> >and honestly I didn't think, once I'd escaped and so had they, that
> >911 was the right option anymore.
>
> And seriously, what were they going to do?
"Surround the area"!!!
> "Yeah, three black kids ... I don't know, late teens, early twenties
> ... uh, you know, like, black. Dark brown skin, thick lips, flat
> noses, tightly-curled hair, sort of poor-looking."
Said "massah" a lot and had downcast eyes. When they weren't busy
eating watermelons and fried chicken, that is.
> "Oh, them. We know them by name, we'll go right by and pick them up."
Yuh. Not likely where I live.
> >I was safe and I am NEVER going to expose myself like that again.
>
> A good idea, but I have to reiterate, their skin colour had nothing to
> do with this. You can avoid dangerous situations without reinforcing
> racist stereotypes.
And so can those 3 thugs. But instead they reinforced a racist
stereotype.
> >At any rate, she claimed they would have surrounded the area, gotten
> >another gun off the street, etc. etc., but I wasn't so sure it would
> >have gotten that response.
>
> I find it hard to believe myself.
>
> >At any rate I'm fine, still thinking about what this all means, and
> >happy to be alive and well for the holidays.
>
> People are generally shit. It pays to remember it.
>
> Glad you're okay, though. Could have been a whole lot worse. You got
> very lucky.
Sure did. Too bad the car didn't swerve onto the sidewalk to avoid me.
*grin*
> C&J
-Aaron
Steve Klein
"Aaron" <aaro...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:44468d8f-acda-4b55...@18g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 16, 10:57 am, Chucky & Janica <janica.hin...@kolumbus.finland>
> wrote:
>> Once upon a time - for example, Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:06:46 -0800 (PST)
>> - there was this guy, or something, called Aaron <aaron...@msn.com>,
>> and they made us all feel better by saying the following stuff:
>>
>> >Well, Friday night I was almost mugged at gunpoint. If I were just a
>> >bit smarter, I would have been mugged and you'll see why I say that,
Next time don't get off anywhere near Anacostia.
sk
Steve Klein
Didn't know you were a flasher, Sanders.
sk
Lord Fiddleshits Cuntbottom
Sorry if this posted twice. My "session expired". Arr, Google blows.
> > >I saw 3 black kids (19-20 maybe?) walking down the sidewalk, and
> > >stepped toward the street a bit to let them by.
>
> > And the relevance of their colour is...?
>
> My, how predictable. Do you know, out of 30 people on various ngs, and
> not all Americans, you are the first to make a big deal out of that?
Not a big deal. It's only because we were talking about it before, and
you know it. Relax.
> And yet, I knew you would pick up on that.
It is an interesting issue, though. I don't know if we need to go into
it on the newsgroup, but it's not like there's a lot else going on and
discussion is good. I am, of course, concerned that Ilya will step in
and say something to piss you off ... but that's pretty standard.
*grins Ilyawards*
> Would it also be a problem if I gave that piece of information to the
> police?
You're very defensive.
> Besides, if I didn't say that, you can't picture them at all. Now you
> can: they're black. See how helpful that is?
I know you're joking[1], but no.
If they'd been white, and you'd said (to the cops) "I was mugged by
three white guys", they'd probably need a bit more than that. Since
their skin colour and the description of the gun was all you seemed to
get out of this, I'd say that's a very interesting comment on cultural
perception.
Your description isn't giving me a picture I care to see.
See, when you say "black guys mugged me", I get a mental picture, you
know, a bunch of ghetto gangbangers. Probably quite close to what
these guys looked like, insofar as all black people look the same to a
scared whitey. If you'd been mugged by white guys, and you said "white
guys mugged me", I'd get a mental picture of a bunch of skeezy drug-
addicted skinheads in rapper pants and whateverthefuck. Probably no
more accurate. I'd actually get a better mental image if you described
their clothes. But it would still mean very little.
> > Technically, the leader of a pack of black negro coloured people is
> > "bull" or "dominant he-nigger".
>
> And you wouldn't have been able to make these jokes if I hadn't told
> you their color.
Sure I would. I would have just assumed they were black guys, because
they mugged you and statistically they must have been black guys.
Right?
> I did. I didn't ask myself WWVSHWD, mind you. I would've beaten them
> all within an inch of their lives if I did that.
Yes! With magick.
And ellipses.
> Instead, I asked myself WWVD, and I ran like a little girl.
Smart, for a Vamps.
I miss that guy. I'll just rest assured that he might drop by and read
this one day, or at least do a Google search for his name, and gain
some solace in the knowledge that we're still talking about him after
all these years.
> > >The cop chastised me a teeny bit for not
> > >calling 911 as soon as the danger was past (an hour was gone instead),
> > >and honestly I didn't think, once I'd escaped and so had they, that
> > >911 was the right option anymore.
>
> > And seriously, what were they going to do?
>
> "Surround the area"!!!
He he he. Yes. Reminds me of that scene in "The Big Lebowski" where
he's asking about his briefcase and his Credence tapes.
"Yeah ... we've got three detectives on it. We got 'em working in
shifts!"
> > "Yeah, three black kids ... I don't know, late teens, early twenties
> > ... uh, you know, like, black. Dark brown skin, thick lips, flat
> > noses, tightly-curled hair, sort of poor-looking."
>
> Said "massah" a lot and had downcast eyes. When they weren't busy
> eating watermelons and fried chicken, that is.
Bahaha! Get it all out of your system. It's healthy.
> > A good idea, but I have to reiterate, their skin colour had nothing to
> > do with this. You can avoid dangerous situations without reinforcing
> > racist stereotypes.
>
> And so can those 3 thugs. But instead they reinforced a racist
> stereotype.
Which is very sad. In their case, though, I'd be more concerned with
their decision to go around threatening people with guns and steal
their wallets. That's far more dangerous and antisocial than
reinforcing racist stereotypes. The reinforcing racist stereotypes
thing is just a side-bonus.
> > Glad you're okay, though. Could have been a whole lot worse. You got
> > very lucky.
>
> Sure did. Too bad the car didn't swerve onto the sidewalk to avoid me.
Agreed.
What? Three less worthless pieces of crap in the world wouldn't bother
me in the slightest, although it might be nice to give them some sort
of chance to better themselves. That's not likely to happen in your
neck of the woods, though. And I lack Janica's forgiving disposition
when it comes to violent criminals.
C@w
[1] Actually, that's tragically untrue. I *hope* you're joking, but
just don't know.
Aaron
wrote:
> > > And the relevance of their colour is...?
>
> > My, how predictable. Do you know, out of 30 people on various ngs, and
> > not all Americans, you are the first to make a big deal out of that?
>
> Not a big deal. It's only because we were talking about it before, and
> you know it. Relax.
I'm relaxed. I just thought you should know you sound like a putz
asking it.
> > And yet, I knew you would pick up on that.
>
> It is an interesting issue, though.
No, it isn't, really. It's part of someone's physical appearance.
Opposition to using it as a descriptor is PC bullshit.
> > Would it also be a problem if I gave that piece of information to the
> > police?
>
> You're very defensive.
Would you rather I be offensive? =)
> > Besides, if I didn't say that, you can't picture them at all. Now you
> > can: they're black. See how helpful that is?
>
> I know you're joking[1], but no.
>
> If they'd been white, and you'd said (to the cops)
I gave a much better description to the cops. I left that out in my ng
posts because I didn't feel like writing it all up again.
"They were black. Really black. Black hair, too. Nappy. And black
eyes. Their hands were kinda white-ish, though, on the palm side."
Again, joking.
> > > Technically, the leader of a pack of black negro coloured people is
> > > "bull" or "dominant he-nigger".
>
> > And you wouldn't have been able to make these jokes if I hadn't told
> > you their color.
>
> Sure I would. I would have just assumed they were black guys, because
> they mugged you and statistically they must have been black guys.
> Right?
Would you have?
> > > >The cop chastised me a teeny bit for not
> > > >calling 911 as soon as the danger was past (an hour was gone instead),
> > > >and honestly I didn't think, once I'd escaped and so had they, that
> > > >911 was the right option anymore.
>
> > > And seriously, what were they going to do?
>
> > "Surround the area"!!!
>
> He he he. Yes. Reminds me of that scene in "The Big Lebowski" where
> he's asking about his briefcase and his Credence tapes.
>
> "Yeah ... we've got three detectives on it. We got 'em working in
> shifts!"
LOL they used that line in "Heroes", too.
> C@w
-Aaron
Chucky & Janica
was this guy, or something, called "Steve Klein" <dcnt...@att.net>,
and they made us all feel better by saying the following stuff:
>> I was safe and I am NEVER going to expose myself like that again.
>
>Didn't know you were a flasher, Sanders.
He's not. He's a safe. Can't you read?
*puts money in Sanders*
*forgets combination*
*puts stethoscope to Sanders's butt cheek and twiddles dial*
Aaron
wrote:
> >> I was safe and I am NEVER going to expose myself like that again.
>
> >Didn't know you were a flasher, Sanders.
>
> He's not. He's a safe. Can't you read?
>
> *puts money in Sanders*
>
> *forgets combination*
>
> *puts stethoscope to Sanders's butt cheek and twiddles dial*
*farts loudly*
> C&J
-Aaron
Lord Fiddleshits Cuntbottom
> > Not a big deal. It's only because we were talking about it before, and
> > you know it. Relax.
>
> I'm relaxed. I just thought you should know you sound like a putz
> asking it.
Sure I do, Aaron. Sure I do.
Beyond describing them for us (not really necessary), there is no
relevance or use to it. I don't need to know what colour a mugger is.
Muggers are muggers.
And don't pretend you're not affixing significance to the fact. Not
after our conversations.
> > > And yet, I knew you would pick up on that.
>
> > It is an interesting issue, though.
>
> No, it isn't, really. It's part of someone's physical appearance.
> Opposition to using it as a descriptor is PC bullshit.
I'm not opposed to you using it as a descriptor, and you fucking well
know it. I'm opposed to you assigning meaning to it, particularly of
the "statistics I can then misuse to create a stereotype" variety.
If you're not doing so, then there's no problem. And no need for you
to be so defensive.
> > > Would it also be a problem if I gave that piece of information to the
> > > police?
>
> > You're very defensive.
>
> Would you rather I be offensive? =)
Pfft. You only manage that when you're not trying.
> I gave a much better description to the cops. I left that out in my ng
> posts because I didn't feel like writing it all up again.
Good. On both counts.
> > Sure I would. I would have just assumed they were black guys, because
> > they mugged you and statistically they must have been black guys.
> > Right?
>
> Would you have?
No. But you were always going to tell us their colour.
C@w
--
<insert devastatingly witty, relevant and cutting sig here>
Aaron
wrote:
> > > Not a big deal. It's only because we were talking about it before, and
> > > you know it. Relax.
>
> > I'm relaxed. I just thought you should know you sound like a putz
> > asking it.
>
> Sure I do, Aaron. Sure I do.
Glad you agree.
> Beyond describing them for us (not really necessary), there is no
> relevance or use to it. I don't need to know what colour a mugger is.
> Muggers are muggers.
>
> And don't pretend you're not affixing significance to the fact. Not
> after our conversations.
I'm not. Well, except to point out that I wasn't mugged by WHITE guys.
Still haven't been a victim on white-on-white crime.
> > > > And yet, I knew you would pick up on that.
>
> > > It is an interesting issue, though.
>
> > No, it isn't, really. It's part of someone's physical appearance.
> > Opposition to using it as a descriptor is PC bullshit.
>
> I'm not opposed to you using it as a descriptor, and you fucking well
> know it. I'm opposed to you assigning meaning to it, particularly of
> the "statistics I can then misuse to create a stereotype" variety.
>
> If you're not doing so, then there's no problem. And no need for you
> to be so defensive.
I'm always defensive, and no, I didn't know that you, with your "why
tell us they were black?", were not opposed to my using it as a
descriptor.
> > > Sure I would. I would have just assumed they were black guys, because
> > > they mugged you and statistically they must have been black guys.
> > > Right?
>
> > Would you have?
>
> No. But you were always going to tell us their colour.
And I would have done so if they were white, as well.
> C@w
-Aaron
Lord Fiddleshits Cuntbottom
> > And don't pretend you're not affixing significance to the fact. Not
> > after our conversations.
>
> I'm not. Well, except to point out that I wasn't mugged by WHITE guys.
> Still haven't been a victim on white-on-white crime.
So, in other words, you are affixing significance.
And there isn't any significance, and you affixing significance is
what I have a problem with.
C@w
--
Please wait while witty sig loads...
Chucky & Janica
- there was this guy, or something, called Aaron <aaro...@msn.com>,
and they made us all feel better by saying the following stuff:
>> >> I was safe and I am NEVER going to expose myself like that again.
>>
>> >Didn't know you were a flasher, Sanders.
>>
>> He's not. He's a safe. Can't you read?
>>
>> *puts money in Sanders*
>>
>> *forgets combination*
>>
>> *puts stethoscope to Sanders's butt cheek and twiddles dial*
>
>*farts loudly*
*screams, covers face, and willingly surrenders to the Feds*
Aaron
wrote:
My final decision: it does have significance, in the here and now, in
these United States of America where I live. Therefore, I will attend
the significance and take appropriate actions.
So sorry.
But at any rate, I do acknowledge that the institutionalized racism in
this country is helping to "keep a brutha down", so you have won a
partial victory.
I'm planning on moving as soon as humanly possible, to an area where I
can be on guard for criminal types in general, instead of having so
many blacks I can't possibly guard against them all.
And yes, I have also decided you did play a small part in making me
vulnerable to this, as you suggested via email. But it was a small
part. I was still on guard, just not enough to get off the street and
go back to the crowded areas.
But I had waited on the street there for my wife for many days in a
row last year, without being threatened, so don't feel too badly. =)
> C@w
-Aaron
Chucky & Janica
- there was this guy, or something, called Aaron <aaro...@msn.com>,
and they made us all feel better by saying the following stuff:
>> So, in other words, you are affixing significance.
>>
>> And there isn't any significance, and you affixing significance is
>> what I have a problem with.
>
>My final decision: it does have significance, in the here and now, in
>these United States of America where I live.
- a racist wonderland -
>Therefore, I will attend
>the significance and take appropriate actions.
Why not do your part to change America from being the way it is? The
way it is is bad. All you need to do is accept the fact - yes, the
*fact* - that the significance is make-believe, perpetuated by racism.
You can still take appropriate precautions. Avoid situations where you
might get mugged by bastards. In the case of being mugged by crazy
idiots on the side of a busy road in broad daylight, I would say
there's not much you can do, but now at least you're forewarned.
Living in fear is no answer. Connecting significance to the muggers'
skin colour is retarded.
Your final decision is poor.
>So sorry.
Not as sorry as I am. We've put a lot of effort into talking you
around.
>I'm planning on moving as soon as humanly possible, to an area where I
>can be on guard for criminal types in general, instead of having so
>many blacks I can't possibly guard against them all.
That's nice. No, it is. I mean, your whole founding premise is still
retarded, but in your neighbourhood I can accept that the simple fact
is, most of the threat comes from people who happen to be black.
No, wait. Poor. And criminals. Who are black because America is a
whitebread paradise. That's what I meant.
Aaron
wrote:
> Once upon a time - for example, Thu, 27 Dec 2007 07:13:42 -0800 (PST)
> and they made us all feel better by saying the following stuff:
>
> >> So, in other words, you are affixing significance.
>
> >> And there isn't any significance, and you affixing significance is
> >> what I have a problem with.
>
> >My final decision: it does have significance, in the here and now, in
> >these United States of America where I live.
>
> - a racist wonderland -
>
> >Therefore, I will attend
> >the significance and take appropriate actions.
>
> Why not do your part to change America from being the way it is? The
> way it is is bad. All you need to do is accept the fact - yes, the
> *fact* - that the significance is make-believe, perpetuated by racism.
>
> You can still take appropriate precautions. Avoid situations where you
> might get mugged by bastards. In the case of being mugged by crazy
> idiots on the side of a busy road in broad daylight, I would say
> there's not much you can do, but now at least you're forewarned.
> Living in fear is no answer. Connecting significance to the muggers'
> skin colour is retarded.
>
> Your final decision is poor.
No, since you acknowledged that "in your neighbourhood I can accept
that the simple fact is, most of the threat comes from people who
happen to be black."
This means it does have significance in the here and now.
And yes, once we are safer, I'll start worrying about how to change
things for the better, for the rest of folks. For now, my family comes
first.
> >So sorry.
>
> Not as sorry as I am. We've put a lot of effort into talking you
> around.
>
> >I'm planning on moving as soon as humanly possible, to an area where I
> >can be on guard for criminal types in general, instead of having so
> >many blacks I can't possibly guard against them all.
>
> That's nice. No, it is. I mean, your whole founding premise is still
> retarded, but in your neighbourhood I can accept that the simple fact
> is, most of the threat comes from people who happen to be black.
>
> No, wait. Poor. And criminals. Who are black because America is a
> whitebread paradise. That's what I meant.
>
> C&J
-Aaron
Shelob
> I was at the train station waiting for my wife to pick me up (other
> car in the shop). It was twilight, not yet full dark, and I was
> standing on the sidewalk of the main drive up to the station, right
> where rush hour traffic was going by and heading into the station.
> Seemed safe enough to me, even given this area.
This seems safe enough, in my opinion, or almost any area. Although
rush hour traffic is not, objectively speaking, the deterrent one
might think. It implies a crowd, but not witnesses. Unless the traffic
is moving extremely slowly (and from your description you were quite
close to a lit intersection), nobody in a car will see the entire
crime, nor will they be able to provide much in the way of eyewitness
account. Nor are they anywhere near as likely to stop as, for example,
a group of people on foot would be.
This, quite simply, can be explained in terms of safety. Why would
a person stop their car and get out to interfere with an armed
robbery? Only very few people would. On the other hand, people on foot
are already at risk, and so are more likely to interfere for their own
sakes.
I apologize for my low view of human nature.
A large number of people in moving vehicles, for the purposes of
this exercise, might as well be watching you on television.
> said, in disbelief, "Right here next to the street?" with another
> smile and a clipped laugh, and he said "Man, I don't give a FUCK!"
Such recklessness can hardly be anticipated. I would hesitate to
imply that your attackers were using any sort of drugs that would have
lowered their inhibitions, but it is entirely possible. I would also
hesitate to imply that your attackers considered the likelihood of
being identified or stopped in such a location, weighed it against the
element of surprise they achieved, and deduced that it was a
worthwhile expenditure of effort. I would not assume that level of
thought.
Far more likely that these were simple thugs, they had a gun, and
they wanted to use it. As you said, perhaps they were just showing off
to one another. If they could make a profit from doing so by the
flimsy pretext of robbing you, then so be it.
I see there is considerable discussion here (although I am perhaps
overstating in the current dry season, since 15 posts hardly
constitutes a discussion, much less a considerable one) about the
color of your attackers. No doubt this is related to, as Saint Chucky
has said, other discussions. It is interesting, but not a key point.
It is possible that, as well as being a target of convenience and
opportunity, you were additionally a target of racial hostility. But
on the weight of experience, I would tend to doubt it.
Your attackers knocked the phone from your hand and allowed you to
pick it up. They allowed you to run away across the street and escape.
Even more curiously, you were carrying a laptop computer and they
asked you or your wallet.
It seem to me that you have been the victim of an armed group of
fools. And fools come in all shapes, sizes, colors, creeds and - yes,
to my regret - genders.
> I turned around, finally starting to feel fear (no idea why I didn't
> earlier, because I certainly wasn't in shock. If anything, I was
> dubious that I was really in danger.
There is a sense of detached unreality that descends in such
situations, quite frequently. It is related to shock, in terms o
psychological process, but it is a very different animal. People often
say that time slows down in a crisis. What actually happens -
obviously - is that your mental and physical processes accelerate, in
preparation for fight-or-flight. This usually happens even before the
increased heart-rate, respiration, and adrenaline output that brings
on panic and shock.
> The gun looked like it could be a
> cap gun, and maybe I reacted as such.
You have military, if not combat experience (by which I mean that I
am unsure of your combat experience, not that I am denying its
occurrence). Perhaps, even though the situations are very different,
you were able to respond using some of your trained faculties.
> At any rate, she claimed they would have surrounded the area, gotten
> another gun off the street, etc. etc.
This is what she is legally obligated to say. I believe getting
guns off th streets, and incarcerating criminals, is what the police
are supposed to do. I also believe there is a clause involving flying
monkeys.
> At any rate I'm fine, still thinking about what this all means, and
> happy to be alive and well for the holidays.
And I trust they proceeded to your general and mutual satisfaction.
Shelob
--
Wherever there's a pool there's always a flirt
Whenever there's school, there'll always be homework
Wherever there's a beat, there's always a drum
Whenever there's fun there's always coca-cola.
Shelob
identify himself) wrote:
> If they'd been white, and you'd said (to the cops) "I was mugged by
> three white guys", they'd probably need a bit more than that. Since
> their skin colour and the description of the gun was all you seemed to
> get out of this, I'd say that's a very interesting comment on cultural
> perception.
>
> Your description isn't giving me a picture I care to see.
You are over-sensitive. The theory of racial tolerance is a fine
thing, but I would suggest it has a lesser significance in the face of
self-defense. I do not imagine Aaron will lose much sleep over the
fact that he is acting in what might be identified as a spirit of
constant low-key racism, if that fact is offset by the additional fact
that in doing so he has kept himself, or his offspring, from harm.
Both of these "facts", of course, are no such thing. They are
almost infinitely arguable. But you raise an interesting point below.
I, personally, prefer misanthropy to racial bigotry. It requires less
effort on my part.
> See, when you say "black guys mugged me", I get a mental picture, you
> know, a bunch of ghetto gangbangers. Probably quite close to what
> these guys looked like, insofar as all black people look the same to a
> scared whitey. If you'd been mugged by white guys, and you said "white
> guys mugged me", I'd get a mental picture of a bunch of skeezy drug-
> addicted skinheads in rapper pants and whateverthefuck. Probably no
> more accurate. I'd actually get a better mental image if you described
> their clothes. But it would still mean very little.
You are referring, I believe, to the concept of cultural marking.
Had Aaron said "guys mugged me", without affixing skin color
details, one is left with a culturally unmarked sample - at least
insofar as the word "guy" is concerned. The addition of the fact that
they mugged him immediately brings cultural markings with it.
The default setting, reinforced by what a purer academic than
myself might label "the global white male hegemony" is "white Anglo
Saxon male aged between 20 and 40". When you say "a man", this is what
most people will picture. Anything else is cultural marking. In the
unlikely event that you would say "a white man", the cultural marking
"white" is added, and a certain number of preconceptions along with
it. When you say "a black man", the same thing happens. The
preconceptions are entirely different, due to innumerable cultural
discrepancies.
The same goes for "a woman" - among the first things a person will
mention in a description of another person is color, followed by
gender, followed by age if it is sufficiently extreme in either
direction as to be worth mentioning. Clothing and other considerations
also follow the pattern of cultural marking, as do negative physical
deviations from the norm, such as obesity, followed by positive
deviations, such as good looks.
When the issue is a mugging, cultural markings take on a whole new
significance, because they are attached to the fact that a violent
crime has taken place. It is human nature to take the cultural
markings, that are otherwise harmless items of description, and
connect them causally to the fact of the crime. And it is also human
nature to work in the opposite direction, and connect the possibility
for crime to a certain set of cultural markings - young black male in
hooded jacket, for example.
Whether or not to mention skin color as a descriptor is an
interesting source of debate, from a social and cultural standpoint.
It is, naturally, a subject of considerable interest to me. Why Saint
Chucky would be so sensitive about it in this case is obviously
related to discussions of which the rest of us have not been a part.
It seems uncharacteristic to me. The objection to using skin color as
a descriptor seems something to which only a woefully politically
correct individual would stoop.
In this case, I believe the objection is not so much to the fact of
the descriptor, as to the unstated tracing backwards from cultural
marking to the fact of the crime, and therefore the tracing of the
same cultural marking to the *potential* for crime in others.
You could argue, Aaron, that such tracing was never present. I
would not believe you, but you could always attempt to make the claim.
Such tracing is human nature, especially in such situations as you
describe. However, it is unnecessary to debate whether or not you
would make such a claim, because you have already admitted to making
the connection elsewhere. With the usual disclaimers, naturally.
To this, I believe, one can legitimately object. But
practicalities, as I have said, will probably result in you not losing
much sleep over it.
> Sure I would. I would have just assumed they were black guys, because
> they mugged you and statistically they must have been black guys.
> Right?
It would seem to depend on the neighborhood. However, the statisics
backing up this assumption are skewed, even if the numbers are
entirely accurate. Drawing conclusions from such statistics would
probably be a mistake, although not likely a serious one.
I suspect, however, that you were aware of this and were attempting
some form of sarcasm.
> > And so can those 3 thugs. But instead they reinforced a racist
> > stereotype.
>
> Which is very sad. In their case, though, I'd be more concerned with
> their decision to go around threatening people with guns and steal
> their wallets. That's far more dangerous and antisocial than
> reinforcing racist stereotypes. The reinforcing racist stereotypes
> thing is just a side-bonus.
*laugh*
Indeed. I would hardly expect a group of thugs to care about such
things. Nor would I expect Aaron to care a great deal, placed next to
the physical danger of being mugged.
It is easy to live in a safe place and have high-minded thories. It
is quite another to live in a dangerous place and live by those same
thories. The theory must often bow before the practicality. This is
why America is in its current poor condition, and why it will continue
to be so.
I do admire your tenacity, however.
> What? Three less worthless pieces of crap in the world wouldn't bother
> me in the slightest, although it might be nice to give them some sort
> of chance to better themselves. That's not likely to happen in your
> neck of the woods, though. And I lack Janica's forgiving disposition
> when it comes to violent criminals.
Or, indeed, almost anything.
ilya...@gmail.com
Aaron wrote:
> Well, Friday night I was almost mugged at gunpoint. If I were just a
> bit smarter, I would have been mugged and you'll see why I say that,
> but all things considered I'm glad it turned out the way it did.
Yeah, I got nothing. But if your goal was to give us a kind of
narrative Of Recent Events, it would have helped to use more
descriptive language.
"While crossing the street, a group of people, three or four,
descended upon me with the ferocity of inebriated vultures. Each was
dressed in clothing. There was no average height. Especially for the
midget. Imagine what it must feel like to be a midget bandit,
especially with such a squeeky voice, like a thirteen-year-old who's
entering puberty and just swallowed air from a balloon. Others were
about eye-level with me, and since I'm podgy and constantly warring
with gravity (165 cm).
Some had pants, which were of a navy-blue hue, though one strangely
enough, had red pants. Potentially some new fashion trend about which
I was heretofore unaware? Likely. Some even had jackets, they appeared
to be leather, but could have been PVC. I am concerned for those that
lacked pants. Though sandals seemed to be adorned to their feet, it
seemed very atypical for a city street. The one with the gun was
decked out, strangely enough, in a burka. Head to toe, he was a man in
black whose only access to The World Beyond The Clothing was the
Cyclops like slit through which he peered at me eevilly.
His partner then proceeded to pull a laser gun out of his pocket, and
spoke in some kind of jargon that sounded like English and Spanish
having a dyslexic time together. It was like that dude from
Bladerunner, y'know? And they didn't even ask me about the porn on my
laptop! They were the most uninterested bandits that I have ever
encountered. All they wanted was money, rather than an enriching
cultural experience. So I proceeded to act like Dustin Hoffman in
Rainman and leave them feeling like Tom Cruise. But blacker."
Ilya On Zee Google
Aaron
ROTFLMAO
Give that to Sweet, and see if he can draw an accurate picture. I
don't think it can be done!
...some had blue pants, one had red pants, some had no pants...one had
a burka, and there were only 3 of them!
*chuckles some more*
Actually, it sounds like the cover of Knife of Dreams.
-Aaron
Chucky & Janica
- there was this guy, or something, called Aaron <aaro...@msn.com>,
and they made us all feel better by saying the following stuff:
>> Why not do your part to change America from being the way it is? The
>> way it is is bad. All you need to do is accept the fact - yes, the
>> *fact* - that the significance is make-believe, perpetuated by racism.
>>
>> You can still take appropriate precautions. Avoid situations where you
>> might get mugged by bastards. In the case of being mugged by crazy
>> idiots on the side of a busy road in broad daylight, I would say
>> there's not much you can do, but now at least you're forewarned.
>> Living in fear is no answer. Connecting significance to the muggers'
>> skin colour is retarded.
>>
>> Your final decision is poor.
>
>No
Yes.
>This means it does have significance in the here and now.
It means you are affixing significance. And you shouldn't. It's a fact
that they were black. It's not a meaningful fact. The only thing it
can lead to is you affixing the same significance to other black
people you see, for no real reason. You'd be better off just not
letting yourself be alone in a place where you might be mugged. And
now you know that those places are more numerous than you thought.
>And yes, once we are safer, I'll start worrying about how to change
>things for the better, for the rest of folks.
Right. And as long as everybody else thinks the same way, the country
- indeed, the world - will still be fucked.
Chucky & Janica
there was this guy, or something, called Shelob
<shelo...@gmail.com>, and they made us all feel better by saying
the following stuff:
> You are over-sensitive.
*huff*
>The theory of racial tolerance is a fine
>thing, but I would suggest it has a lesser significance in the face of
>self-defense. I do not imagine Aaron will lose much sleep over the
>fact that he is acting in what might be identified as a spirit of
>constant low-key racism, if that fact is offset by the additional fact
>that in doing so he has kept himself, or his offspring, from harm.
This is what he tells us. Except it took us months to convince him to
call it racism. And he still periodically resets.
> Both of these "facts", of course, are no such thing. They are
>almost infinitely arguable. But you raise an interesting point below.
>I, personally, prefer misanthropy to racial bigotry. It requires less
>effort on my part.
This was what I thought. Why see a black person and think he or she
could be a threat, when you can do the same, with about as much
justification, for anybody?
That doesn't mean the same as living in constant fear, though.
> The default setting, reinforced by what a purer academic than
>myself might label "the global white male hegemony"
Gah, hegemony.
> Whether or not to mention skin color as a descriptor is an
>interesting source of debate, from a social and cultural standpoint.
>It is, naturally, a subject of considerable interest to me. Why Saint
>Chucky would be so sensitive about it in this case is obviously
>related to discussions of which the rest of us have not been a part.
Secret Hindle-Sanders mailing list, sorry.
>It seems uncharacteristic to me. The objection to using skin color as
>a descriptor seems something to which only a woefully politically
>correct individual would stoop.
I'm never!
> In this case, I believe the objection is not so much to the fact of
>the descriptor, as to the unstated tracing backwards from cultural
>marking to the fact of the crime, and therefore the tracing of the
>same cultural marking to the *potential* for crime in others.
Right.
> To this, I believe, one can legitimately object. But
>practicalities, as I have said, will probably result in you not losing
>much sleep over it.
As soon as I'm safe, I'll stop doing it. But until then, it's more
practical to connect skin colour with likelihood of crime.
That's a classic Sanders reset. And it's bullshit. From beginning to
end. When is he going to be safe? Never, in that environment. When is
the environment going to change? Never, if he doesn't do his part.
Maybe never even if he *does*, but that's the sort of mob thinking
that perpetuates the bullshit. When is he going to change his
attitude? When he and his family are safe. Which will never happen.
Because he won't change his attitude until he does.
That's like saying you won't put your underpants on until you have
your pants on. And only Superman can get away with that shit.
> It would seem to depend on the neighborhood. However, the statisics
>backing up this assumption are skewed, even if the numbers are
>entirely accurate. Drawing conclusions from such statistics would
>probably be a mistake, although not likely a serious one.
>
> I suspect, however, that you were aware of this and were attempting
>some form of sarcasm.
*splutter*
> It is easy to live in a safe place and have high-minded thories. It
>is quite another to live in a dangerous place and live by those same
>thories. The theory must often bow before the practicality. This is
>why America is in its current poor condition, and why it will continue
>to be so.
There's a difference between practical safety and illusory safety
based on racist bigotry fuelled by racist statistics. We explained
this to Sanders at great length, using his awesome analogy of the
bathroom. He said that statistically, the bathroom is where most
accidents in the house happen. So he's safer if he doesn't use the
bathroom. Actually a perfect analogy, because practically, he *can't*
stop using the bathroom. Doing so makes him less safe, certainly less
hygienic, and also it makes him a fucking idiot.
The safety Sanders seeks will not come from connecting dark skin with
threat of violence.
> I do admire your tenacity, however.
Terrier.
>> What? Three less worthless pieces of crap in the world wouldn't bother
>> me in the slightest, although it might be nice to give them some sort
>> of chance to better themselves. That's not likely to happen in your
>> neck of the woods, though. And I lack Janica's forgiving disposition
>> when it comes to violent criminals.
>
> Or, indeed, almost anything.
Hey.
That's true too.
Chucky & Janica
there was this guy, or something, called Shelob
<shelo...@gmail.com>, and they made us all feel better by saying
the following stuff:
> Your attackers knocked the phone from your hand and allowed you to
>pick it up. They allowed you to run away across the street and escape.
>Even more curiously, you were carrying a laptop computer and they
>asked you or your wallet.
>
> It seem to me that you have been the victim of an armed group of
>fools. And fools come in all shapes, sizes, colors, creeds and - yes,
>to my regret - genders.
But not species. Right?
Chucky & Janica
there was this guy, or something, called ilya...@gmail.com, and they
made us all feel better by saying the following stuff:
>"While crossing the street, a group of people, three or four,
Gold.
At what point did Sanders say, "I can't stop here, this is bat
country" and run away screaming?
Chucky & Janica
there was this guy, or something, called Aaron <aaro...@msn.com>, and
they made us all feel better by saying the following stuff:
>ROTFLMAO
>
>Give that to Sweet, and see if he can draw an accurate picture. I
>don't think it can be done!
>
>...some had blue pants, one had red pants, some had no pants...one had
>a burka, and there were only 3 of them!
If anybody can do it, it's Sweet.
>*chuckles some more*
>
>Actually, it sounds like the cover of Knife of Dreams.
*guffaw*
That's creepily true. "One of them had arms longer than his body.
Another looked a bit like Donkey Kong, if Donkey Kong were dressed in
full plate mail and was a rapper for some reason."
Shelob
> >And yes, once we are safer, I'll start worrying about how to change
> >things for the better, for the rest of folks.
>
> Right. And as long as everybody else thinks the same way, the country
> - indeed, the world - will still be fucked.
The fate of the world is a heavy burden to lay on the shoulders of
one man who did not have any say in the creation or state of said
world, but merely attempts to live in it.
Shelob
> >The theory of racial tolerance is a fine
> >thing, but I would suggest it has a lesser significance in the face of
> >self-defense. I do not imagine Aaron will lose much sleep over the
> >fact that he is acting in what might be identified as a spirit of
> >constant low-key racism, if that fact is offset by the additional fact
> >that in doing so he has kept himself, or his offspring, from harm.
>
> This is what he tells us. Except it took us months to convince him to
> call it racism. And he still periodically resets.
It is difficult to classify as racism something which seems little
more than a harmless statement of fact. "These criminals were black
men" is a statement of fact, although to call it harmless may be
something of an exaggeration.
It is only a short leap from this, after all, to "many criminals
are black men" and "most criminals are black men", which may also be
statements of fact but are strongly culturally-influenced
nevertheless. And far from harmless, considering the attitude they
represent and the behavioral rut they instigate.
> This was what I thought. Why see a black person and think he or she
> could be a threat, when you can do the same, with about as much
> justification, for anybody?
>
> That doesn't mean the same as living in constant fear, though.
The simple fact of crime is, while a certain amount of readiness
can alleviate your chances of being involved in something like an
armed robbery, there is a point at which it becomes impossible to be
more prepared, and this is the point at which constant fear sets in,
or a constant state of vigilance that is difficult to distinguish from
paranoia.
One will never be one hundred percent safe - one can only get as
close as is practical to that state of safety. Aaron's mugging is a
case in point. No amount of preparation or readiness or fear could
have prevented what occurred. He was in a low-risk area and the
likelihood of being mugged was negligible.
Short of running away from the group of men approaching, there was
very little he could have done. Living in constant fear, or indeed
acknowledging that anybody could be a threat, achieves very little.
> > To this, I believe, one can legitimately object. But
> >practicalities, as I have said, will probably result in you not losing
> >much sleep over it.
>
> As soon as I'm safe, I'll stop doing it. But until then, it's more
> practical to connect skin colour with likelihood of crime.
I would hesitate to use the term "practical", I concur. Although
there is a certain antisocial pragmatism to the philosophy. Of course,
such an attitude is hardly likely to mend any interracial gulfs. Then
again, neither is stealing a man's wallet at gunpoint.
The interesting thing is, to the criminals it most likely was not
racial. It was bravado, general hostility, possibly with a certain
amount of greed thrown in for good measure. That Aaron's risk-
assessment now includes skin color as a cultural marker for
threatening people - this has made it a racial issue.
> There's a difference between practical safety and illusory safety
> based on racist bigotry fuelled by racist statistics. We explained
> this to Sanders at great length, using his awesome analogy of the
> bathroom. He said that statistically, the bathroom is where most
> accidents in the house happen. So he's safer if he doesn't use the
> bathroom. Actually a perfect analogy, because practically, he *can't*
> stop using the bathroom. Doing so makes him less safe, certainly less
> hygienic, and also it makes him a fucking idiot.
Indeed.
> The safety Sanders seeks will not come from connecting dark skin with
> threat of violence.
That rather depends on what sort of safety Aaron seeks. If he does
not wish to be the victim of hostility from black people, he would do
well to avoid black people. If the overwhelming majority of hostility
he has experienced has come from black people, he may consider this
avoidance justified.
This will do nothing, of course, to ease the hostility he has
witnessed, either towards himself or towards others. Moreover, it will
only ensure that he is not a victim of said hostility if he manages to
avoid black people entirely. And that, I have to say, would be quite a
feat.
There must be, as you have said, a practical middle ground between
risk assessment and personal action.
> > I do admire your tenacity, however.
>
> Terrier.
Among the most noble of canines.
Shelob
> > It seem to me that you have been the victim of an armed group of
> >fools. And fools come in all shapes, sizes, colors, creeds and - yes,
> >to my regret - genders.
>
> But not species. Right?
One would have thought that would go without saying.
Shelob
I see.
Where, out of curiosity, can one acquire some of this "zee google",
for purely medicinal purposes?
Chucky & Janica
there was this guy, or something, called Shelob
<shelo...@gmail.com>, and they made us all feel better by saying
the following stuff:
>> >And yes, once we are safer, I'll start worrying about how to change
>> >things for the better, for the rest of folks.
>>
>> Right. And as long as everybody else thinks the same way, the country
>> - indeed, the world - will still be fucked.
>
> The fate of the world is a heavy burden to lay on the shoulders of
>one man who did not have any say in the creation or state of said
>world, but merely attempts to live in it.
He has a say in the state of the world. He has as much say as any one
man, woman or child. That's all he has to work with, so why not let it
work for good?
Plus, he has kids, so he can teach them to act that way as well. That
means he counts for extra in the "fixing the world" game.
Chucky & Janica
there was this guy, or something, called Shelob
<shelo...@gmail.com>, and they made us all feel better by saying
the following stuff:
>> This is what he tells us. Except it took us months to convince him to
>> call it racism. And he still periodically resets.
>
> It is difficult to classify as racism something which seems little
>more than a harmless statement of fact. "These criminals were black
>men" is a statement of fact, although to call it harmless may be
>something of an exaggeration.
>
> It is only a short leap from this, after all, to "many criminals
>are black men" and "most criminals are black men", which may also be
>statements of fact but are strongly culturally-influenced
>nevertheless. And far from harmless, considering the attitude they
>represent and the behavioral rut they instigate.
Right.
> Short of running away from the group of men approaching, there was
>very little he could have done. Living in constant fear, or indeed
>acknowledging that anybody could be a threat, achieves very little.
Yeah. That's one of the things I find so dubious about the whole
theory. It's one thing to say that you're just going to bear the
"fact" in mind to keep yourself safe ... but what do you do? Run away?
Cross the street? Grab your handbag?
What?
Sanders has a handbag. I've seen it.
> I would hesitate to use the term "practical", I concur. Although
>there is a certain antisocial pragmatism to the philosophy. Of course,
>such an attitude is hardly likely to mend any interracial gulfs. Then
>again, neither is stealing a man's wallet at gunpoint.
Touch-fuckin'-é.
>> > I do admire your tenacity, however.
>>
>> Terrier.
>
> Among the most noble of canines.
Noble? I wasn't aiming for noble and you know it!
Chucky & Janica
there was this guy, or something, called Shelob
<shelo...@gmail.com>, and they made us all feel better by saying
the following stuff:
>> Ilya On Zee Google
>
> I see.
>
> Where, out of curiosity, can one acquire some of this "zee google",
>for purely medicinal purposes?
I want a five-euro bag.
Ilya the Recusant
That's the thing - he didn't. Strangely enough, the rather peculiar
nature of his assaulters left his brain reeling, and catapulted him
into a quasi-scientific state of observation, not unlike one pondering
just what the hell DKS was thinking when he painted that
boddice-ripper/romance of a cover for Lord of Chaos.
>C&J
Ilya the Recusant
-----------------
"Asshole" has a special place in my childhood, the point at which I
first learned that typical Americans were assholes.
- C&J
----
http://ohilya.livejournal.com/
Ilya the Recusant
Janica <janica...@kolumbus.finland> wrote:
>there was this guy, or something, called Shelob
><shelo...@gmail.com>, and they made us all feel better by saying
>the following stuff:
>
>>> Ilya On Zee Google
>>
>> I see.
>>
>> Where, out of curiosity, can one acquire some of this "zee google",
>>for purely medicinal purposes?
You have to fight Uwe Boll.
>I want a five-euro bag.
You can one for free if you watch In the Name of the King: A Dungeon
Siege Tale.
Chucky & Janica
there was this guy, or something, called Ilya the Recusant
<q...@deadspam.net>, and they made us all feel better by saying the
following stuff:
>>I want a five-euro bag.
>
>You can one for free if you watch In the Name of the King: A Dungeon
>Siege Tale.
Sounds delightful. I'm in.
Ilya the Recusant
Janica <janica...@kolumbus.finland> wrote:
>there was this guy, or something, called Ilya the Recusant
><q...@deadspam.net>, and they made us all feel better by saying the
>following stuff:
>
>>>I want a five-euro bag.
>>
>>You can one for free if you watch In the Name of the King: A Dungeon
>>Siege Tale.
>
>Sounds delightful. I'm in.
Uwe Boll is never delightful!
Aaron
> > There's a difference between practical safety and illusory safety
> > based on racist bigotry fuelled by racist statistics. We explained
> > this to Sanders at great length, using his awesome analogy of the
> > bathroom. He said that statistically, the bathroom is where most
> > accidents in the house happen. So he's safer if he doesn't use the
> > bathroom. Actually a perfect analogy, because practically, he *can't*
> > stop using the bathroom. Doing so makes him less safe, certainly less
> > hygienic, and also it makes him a fucking idiot.
>
> Indeed.
I was rethinking this analogy, and I came to realize it was presented
incorrectly (by me) in an attempt to represent real life.
Instead of avoiding the bathroom, what I should have said was that I
need to be "on guard" when in the bathroom, because it is where the
most accidents occur in a household. I won't take into account how
nice the furnishings are, or how clean it is. It is a bathroom, and I
need to be on guard.
Similarly, I will be on guard around blacks here in America. I won't
take into account how nice the clothes are, or how clean he/she is. It
is a black person in America, and I need to be on guard.[1]
I think this is a much better parallel than "avoiding" or "not using"
the bathroom, and I apologize for that poor form of the analogy.
> Shelob
[1] If you take this too seriously, Chucky, you are a putz.[2]
[2] Hi Shelob! Thanks for the input! You have the right of it, even
though you excused me less than I do. You excused me enough, I think.
=)
Shelob
> > > There's a difference between practical safety and illusory safety
> > > based on racist bigotry fuelled by racist statistics. We explained
> > > this to Sanders at great length, using his awesome analogy of the
> > > bathroom. He said that statistically, the bathroom is where most
> > > accidents in the house happen. So he's safer if he doesn't use the
> > > bathroom. Actually a perfect analogy, because practically, he *can't*
> > > stop using the bathroom. Doing so makes him less safe, certainly less
> > > hygienic, and also it makes him a fucking idiot.
>
> Instead of avoiding the bathroom, what I should have said was that I
> need to be "on guard" when in the bathroom, because it is where the
> most accidents occur in a household. I won't take into account how
> nice the furnishings are, or how clean it is. It is a bathroom, and I
> need to be on guard.
To further expand the analogy, and in an attempt to apply it to
your personal safety amongst your fellow citizens, perhaps some
cosmetic features should be taken into account.
For example, while we may consider it statistically true that most
household accidents happen in the bathroom for the sake of this
discussion, the nature of these accidents can be fairly linked to the
condition of the bathroom in a majority of cases. Electrical failures
are more likely to occur in bathrooms with faulty electrical equipment
and exposed wires, or leaking faucets that produce areas of wetness.
Likewise, wet tiles and slippery growths are more likely in bathrooms
with cheap and defective plumbing. Lack of cleanliness will also bring
with it an increased risk of contamination or other injuries.
Any bathroom may present risks and you would do well to be on
guard. A substandard bathroom, however, will present more risks and by
the same statistical token you should be more cautious. To disregard
the state of the bathroom while simultaneously acknowledging risk on
the basis of nothing more than "it is a bathroom and statistically
hazardous" seems strange to me. Moreover, at a certain point, no
amount of caution will protect you from the shoddiness of the
bathroom.
By the same logic, any other room in the house presents dangers,
and you would be wise to be cautious in those rooms as well - albeit
for different reasons. A clean, new, well-designed bathroom is really
no more dangerous than any other room in the house, and most of the
added danger is purely a matter of perception and anxiety. All in all,
a most excellent analogy.
> Similarly, I will be on guard around blacks here in America. I won't
> take into account how nice the clothes are, or how clean he/she is. It
> is a black person in America, and I need to be on guard.[1]
Certainly you should take into account how nice his or her clothes
are, and how clean he or she is. To do so may be bigoted, elitist, and
any number of other unflattering things, but that would seem to be
irrelevant. To do otherwise is leaving you nothing but a racist
generalization to base your safety on, which is purely foolish. If you
are going to be on guard in response to appearances, you would do well
to make use of all information available to you. To be on guard on the
basis of skin color is sadly practical. To be on guard on the basis of
other cultural markings and context is no greater evil, and may well
be a lesser one.
> I think this is a much better parallel than "avoiding" or "not using"
> the bathroom, and I apologize for that poor form of the analogy.
Quite unnecessary. I found it interesting and quite applicable, and
the spirit of the analogy was quite clear. There was also very little
rhinoceros feces involved, for which I am grateful.
> [2] Hi Shelob! Thanks for the input! You have the right of it, even
> though you excused me less than I do. You excused me enough, I think.
I am a beacon of tolerance in a cruel and unforgiving world, and
you would do well to remember it.
Aaron
I think you're ignoring the fact that bathroom floors can be slippery
without faulty plumbing (careless owners, no bathmat, peeing in the
dark, etc.) and can certainly be electrically hazardous without faulty
wiring...full sinks/tubs, multitasking, etc. I was not aware that most
electrical accidents in the bathroom were faulty wiring... In fact,
since bathrooms tend to get quite moist, one would imagine faulty
wiring issues become readily apparent quite...readily.
> By the same logic, any other room in the house presents dangers,
> and you would be wise to be cautious in those rooms as well - albeit
> for different reasons. A clean, new, well-designed bathroom is really
> no more dangerous than any other room in the house, and most of the
> added danger is purely a matter of perception and anxiety. All in all,
> a most excellent analogy.
I'm not quite seeing how you came to that final sentence, unless you
are complimenting yourself, but ok. Cool.
> > Similarly, I will be on guard around blacks here in America. I won't
> > take into account how nice the clothes are, or how clean he/she is. It
> > is a black person in America, and I need to be on guard.[1]
>
> Certainly you should take into account how nice his or her clothes
> are, and how clean he or she is. To do so may be bigoted, elitist, and
> any number of other unflattering things, but that would seem to be
> irrelevant. To do otherwise is leaving you nothing but a racist
> generalization to base your safety on, which is purely foolish. If you
> are going to be on guard in response to appearances, you would do well
> to make use of all information available to you. To be on guard on the
> basis of skin color is sadly practical. To be on guard on the basis of
> other cultural markings and context is no greater evil, and may well
> be a lesser one.
Well, ok, I'll do both.
> > I think this is a much better parallel than "avoiding" or "not using"
> > the bathroom, and I apologize for that poor form of the analogy.
>
> Quite unnecessary. I found it interesting and quite applicable, and
> the spirit of the analogy was quite clear. There was also very little
> rhinoceros feces involved, for which I am grateful.
Well, excellent.
> > [2] Hi Shelob! Thanks for the input! You have the right of it, even
> > though you excused me less than I do. You excused me enough, I think.
>
> I am a beacon of tolerance in a cruel and unforgiving world, and
> you would do well to remember it.
LOL
How many times have you been mugged at gunpoint?
> Shelob
-Aaron
Shelob
> > Any bathroom may present risks and you would do well to be on
> > guard. A substandard bathroom, however, will present more risks and by
> > the same statistical token you should be more cautious. To disregard
> > the state of the bathroom while simultaneously acknowledging risk on
> > the basis of nothing more than "it is a bathroom and statistically
> > hazardous" seems strange to me. Moreover, at a certain point, no
> > amount of caution will protect you from the shoddiness of the
> > bathroom.
>
> I think you're ignoring the fact that bathroom floors can be slippery
> without faulty plumbing (careless owners, no bathmat, peeing in the
> dark, etc.) and can certainly be electrically hazardous without faulty
> wiring...full sinks/tubs, multitasking, etc.
If such considerations are to count for your analogy, the "careless
owner" would be you and your substandard treatment of black people,
leading them to be dangerous. In these cases your danger can be
limited more by laying down a metaphorical bathmat than by behaving in
a guarded manner.
I shall not even attempt to address your "peeing in the dark"
problem.
> I was not aware that most
> electrical accidents in the bathroom were faulty wiring... In fact,
> since bathrooms tend to get quite moist, one would imagine faulty
> wiring issues become readily apparent quite...readily.
Electrical appliances with no wiring problems are well insulated
against any and all moisture in a bathroom, short of actually dropping
a plugged-in appliance into a full bathroom sink. And then attempting
to retrieve it. Bare-handed. In a house with no safety fuses.
> > By the same logic, any other room in the house presents dangers,
> > and you would be wise to be cautious in those rooms as well - albeit
> > for different reasons. A clean, new, well-designed bathroom is really
> > no more dangerous than any other room in the house, and most of the
> > added danger is purely a matter of perception and anxiety. All in all,
> > a most excellent analogy.
>
> I'm not quite seeing how you came to that final sentence, unless you
> are complimenting yourself, but ok. Cool.
Not at all. In extending your analogy to reflect the real-life case
of bathroom safety, and the real-life case of your own safety with
regard to black people, I have found the analogy to be quite
appropriate.
The largest problem I can see with the bathroom analogy is the
simple fact that bathroom accidents are almost invariably your own
fault. They can be avoided in the overwhelming majority of cases by
care and attention on your part, and good maintenance of the bathroom.
Your mugging experience was not your fault and could not
practically have been avoided or predicted.
> > > [2] Hi Shelob! Thanks for the input! You have the right of it, even
> > > though you excused me less than I do. You excused me enough, I think.
>
> > I am a beacon of tolerance in a cruel and unforgiving world, and
> > you would do well to remember it.
>
> LOL
>
> How many times have you been mugged at gunpoint?
*smile*
Once at gunpoint, twice at knifepoint.
Lord Fiddleshits Cuntbottom
> I shall not even attempt to address your "peeing in the dark"
> problem.
Dear sweet merciful Christ, my sides. Did this line actually have to
be posted in a thread dealing with racial discrimination?
For shame.
C@w
--
Now I have a new nickname at work. "Girly Squealing Hysterical Tubby
Immigrant Guy".
Chucky & Janica
- there was this guy, or something, called Aaron <aaro...@msn.com>,
and they made us all feel better by saying the following stuff:
>[1] If you take this too seriously, Chucky, you are a putz.[2]
Take you seriously? Me? You?
You owe me an Email.
Chucky & Janica
- there was this guy, or something, called Aaron <aaro...@msn.com>,
and they made us all feel better by saying the following stuff:
>> Any bathroom may present risks and you would do well to be on
>> guard. A substandard bathroom, however, will present more risks and by
>> the same statistical token you should be more cautious. To disregard
>> the state of the bathroom while simultaneously acknowledging risk on
>> the basis of nothing more than "it is a bathroom and statistically
>> hazardous" seems strange to me. Moreover, at a certain point, no
>> amount of caution will protect you from the shoddiness of the
>> bathroom.
>
>I think you're ignoring the fact that bathroom floors can be slippery
>without faulty plumbing (careless owners, no bathmat, peeing in the
>dark, etc.) and can certainly be electrically hazardous without faulty
>wiring...full sinks/tubs, multitasking, etc. I was not aware that most
>electrical accidents in the bathroom were faulty wiring... In fact,
>since bathrooms tend to get quite moist, one would imagine faulty
>wiring issues become readily apparent quite...readily.
Just as long as you're not blaming yourself for any of these
accidents, we're all good. Right?
>How many times have you been mugged at gunpoint?
*snicker* Yeah. And how many of them are still alive?
Keep in mind that back when Shelob was being mugged, the poor cunts
only got one shot, and then they had to pour powder into the barrel,
drop in another piece of shot, stoke it, tamp it, hang their powder
horn back in the inside pocket of their waistcoats...
Hee hee. Waistcoats.
*looks around*
*sidles away*
Chucky & Janica
there was this guy, or something, called Ilya the Recusant
<q...@deadspam.net>, and they made us all feel better by saying the
following stuff:
>>>>I want a five-euro bag.
>>>
>>>You can one for free if you watch In the Name of the King: A Dungeon
>>>Siege Tale.
>>
>>Sounds delightful. I'm in.
>
>Uwe Boll is never delightful!
Sounds like a sexually transmitted disease.
Ilya the Recusant
Janica <janica...@kolumbus.finland> wrote:
>there was this guy, or something, called Ilya the Recusant
><q...@deadspam.net>, and they made us all feel better by saying the
>following stuff:
>
>>>>>I want a five-euro bag.
>>>>
>>>>You can one for free if you watch In the Name of the King: A Dungeon
>>>>Siege Tale.
>>>
>>>Sounds delightful. I'm in.
>>
>>Uwe Boll is never delightful!
>
>Sounds like a sexually transmitted disease.
If movies could hand out diseases, I think his would.
I love, btw, that the soundtrack for his latest movie features music
from Nightwish, Blind Guardian and even Disturbed. Unbelievable.
Shelob
> >How many times have you been mugged at gunpoint?
>
> *snicker* Yeah. And how many of them are still alive?
>
> Keep in mind that back when Shelob was being mugged, the poor cunts
> only got one shot, and then they had to pour powder into the barrel,
> drop in another piece of shot, stoke it, tamp it, hang their powder
> horn back in the inside pocket of their waistcoats...
I am sure you find this terribly amusing.
Aaron
> Chucky and Janica wrote:
> > >How many times have you been mugged at gunpoint?
>
> > *snicker* Yeah. And how many of them are still alive?
>
> > Keep in mind that back when Shelob was being mugged, the poor cunts
> > only got one shot, and then they had to pour powder into the barrel,
> > drop in another piece of shot, stoke it, tamp it, hang their powder
> > horn back in the inside pocket of their waistcoats...
>
> I am sure you find this terribly amusing.
I thought he was serious.
> Shelob
-Aaron
Aaron
wrote:
> Once upon a time - for example, Mon, 14 Jan 2008 07:30:35 -0800 (PST)
> and they made us all feel better by saying the following stuff:
>
> >[1] If you take this too seriously, Chucky, you are a putz.[2]
>
> Take you seriously? Me? You?
>
> You owe me an Email.
No email for you. Too busy being racist.
*sulks*
> C&J
-Aaron
Chucky & Janica
- there was this guy, or something, called Shelob
<shelo...@gmail.com>, and they made us all feel better by saying
the following stuff:
>> >How many times have you been mugged at gunpoint?
>>
>> *snicker* Yeah. And how many of them are still alive?
>>
>> Keep in mind that back when Shelob was being mugged, the poor cunts
>> only got one shot, and then they had to pour powder into the barrel,
>> drop in another piece of shot, stoke it, tamp it, hang their powder
>> horn back in the inside pocket of their waistcoats...
>
> I am sure you find this terribly amusing.
I assure you, madam, I do.
Chucky & Janica
- there was this guy, or something, called Aaron <aaro...@msn.com>,
and they made us all feel better by saying the following stuff:
>> > *snicker* Yeah. And how many of them are still alive?
>>
>> > Keep in mind that back when Shelob was being mugged, the poor cunts
>> > only got one shot, and then they had to pour powder into the barrel,
>> > drop in another piece of shot, stoke it, tamp it, hang their powder
>> > horn back in the inside pocket of their waistcoats...
>>
>> I am sure you find this terribly amusing.
>
>I thought he was serious.
You did? Me?
Why?
C&J
*lost and afraid*
Chucky & Janica
- there was this guy, or something, called Aaron <aaro...@msn.com>,
and they made us all feel better by saying the following stuff:
>> >[1] If you take this too seriously, Chucky, you are a putz.[2]
>>
>> Take you seriously? Me? You?
>>
>> You owe me an Email.
>
>No email for you. Too busy being racist.
That didn't stop you delivering the last 35 Emails on time.
*snicker*
Chucky & Janica
there was this guy, or something, called Ilya the Recusant
<q...@deadspam.net>, and they made us all feel better by saying the
following stuff:
>>>>>You can one for free if you watch In the Name of the King: A Dungeon
>>>>>Siege Tale.
>>>>
>>>>Sounds delightful. I'm in.
>>>
>>>Uwe Boll is never delightful!
>>
>>Sounds like a sexually transmitted disease.
>
>If movies could hand out diseases, I think his would.
So wear a condom over your head to this one, eh?
>I love, btw, that the soundtrack for his latest movie features music
>from Nightwish, Blind Guardian and even Disturbed. Unbelievable.
Sounds like a delightful romp.
Ilya the Recusant
Janica <janica...@kolumbus.finland> wrote:
>there was this guy, or something, called Ilya the Recusant
><q...@deadspam.net>, and they made us all feel better by saying the
>following stuff:
>
>>>>>>You can one for free if you watch In the Name of the King: A Dungeon
>>>>>>Siege Tale.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sounds delightful. I'm in.
>>>>
>>>>Uwe Boll is never delightful!
>>>
>>>Sounds like a sexually transmitted disease.
>>
>>If movies could hand out diseases, I think his would.
>
>So wear a condom over your head to this one, eh?
Full body condom.
Remember Dungeons and Dragons: The Movie?
This is a thousand times worse.
>>I love, btw, that the soundtrack for his latest movie features music
>>from Nightwish, Blind Guardian and even Disturbed. Unbelievable.
>
>Sounds like a delightful romp.
Like a Best-Of Fantasy for a videogame about...an asskicking farmer.
Chucky & Janica
there was this guy, or something, called Ilya the Recusant
<q...@deadspam.net>, and they made us all feel better by saying the
following stuff:
>>>>>Uwe Boll is never delightful!
>>>>
>>>>Sounds like a sexually transmitted disease.
>>>
>>>If movies could hand out diseases, I think his would.
>>
>>So wear a condom over your head to this one, eh?
>
>Full body condom.
>
>Remember Dungeons and Dragons: The Movie?
>
>This is a thousand times worse.
Wow.
I thought the D&D movie was due for a sequel?
Ilya the Recusant
Janica <janica...@kolumbus.finland> wrote:
>there was this guy, or something, called Ilya the Recusant
><q...@deadspam.net>, and they made us all feel better by saying the
>following stuff:
>
>>>>>>Uwe Boll is never delightful!
>>>>>
>>>>>Sounds like a sexually transmitted disease.
>>>>
>>>>If movies could hand out diseases, I think his would.
>>>
>>>So wear a condom over your head to this one, eh?
>>
>>Full body condom.
>>
>>Remember Dungeons and Dragons: The Movie?
>>
>>This is a thousand times worse.
>
>Wow.
>
>I thought the D&D movie was due for a sequel?
It's already out there. Wrath of the Dragon God. It's actually better
than the original.
Chucky & Janica
there was this guy, or something, called Ilya the Recusant
<q...@deadspam.net>, and they made us all feel better by saying the
following stuff:
>>>Remember Dungeons and Dragons: The Movie?
>>>
>>>This is a thousand times worse.
>>
>>Wow.
>>
>>I thought the D&D movie was due for a sequel?
>
>It's already out there. Wrath of the Dragon God. It's actually better
>than the original.
That's sort of like saying Helsinki got more snow than Perth, WA, this
January. I mean, it still only snowed here, like, once.
Ilya the Recusant
Janica <janica...@kolumbus.finland> wrote:
>there was this guy, or something, called Ilya the Recusant
><q...@deadspam.net>, and they made us all feel better by saying the
>following stuff:
>
>>>>Remember Dungeons and Dragons: The Movie?
>>>>
>>>>This is a thousand times worse.
>>>
>>>Wow.
>>>
>>>I thought the D&D movie was due for a sequel?
>>
>>It's already out there. Wrath of the Dragon God. It's actually better
>>than the original.
>
>That's sort of like saying Helsinki got more snow than Perth, WA, this
>January. I mean, it still only snowed here, like, once.
Thank goodness is snowed in Helsinki in January, then.