Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Racist Zing!

For whatever reason, I returned to the thread wherein HesterPrynne decried the uncontrolled breeding of blacks in St. Louis (see this post). Hester, sadly, hadn't taken the bait and responded to my silly comment. But some schmuck did go ahead and make a "blacks is munkeez ha ha" joke:

See, there were black people in a video, so clever people will see that that's just like the famous opening of 2001. JUST like it.


Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Good Breeding

HesterPrynne is a lady of high birth, the result of centuries of the most careful, purposeful reproduction (you have to read from the bottom up to get the comments in chronological order, because the PD's commenting system is terrible):

Hester, you see, is white, and therefore not the product of "free range breeding," a term she finds offensive, yet accurate and appropriate for use on the internet. This makes her different from the "segment of society" she works "among." These animals don't have families like Hester does. And that, of course, is the root of all their problems.

Hester tells us that it was the dissolving of the family unit that "brought about" violent behavior. And she doesn't mean any of this bullshit these "people" like to refer to as their families either, no way: the only way to have a family is for there to be a dad there. Duh. Aunties? NOT FAMILY. Cousins? NOT RELATED TO YOU. Grandma? INSUFFICIENT TO CURB YOUR NATURALLY VIOLENT TENDENCIES. Single mom? GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE. It's not up to you to define your family. It's up to Hester and her patriarchal, white values, to do so, and she's not buying this wildebeest-style humping going on on the North Side as anything that could ever produce a family.*

And Hester has evidence! That's right, she can "substantiate [her] contention" by pointing to good black families. Ones where no one beats people up! Ones where the children still live in the same house as the testicles whence they sprang! Ones not "inbred" because of "fornication!"** This, of course, is Hester's "Get Out of Being Called a Racist Free" card, because, hey, I like some black people! I don't hate all of them, just the ones that are the exceptions to the rule I just made up about black people! She certainly can't have included it because she honestly believes that it goes remotely toward proving whatever asinine point she's trying make.

As I told Hester later in the thread (yes, I've tentatively begun commenting on stltoday, because stirring up shit is fun sometimes), I feel really sorry for the people she works "among." Whatever she is doing on the North Side, she should stop, since I'm confident that those people will be better off without some privileged white girl holding her nose and thinking the whole time about how they are "on the Federal dole" and are having their illegitimate lives subsidized as a form of slavery. Whatever she's doing, she'll probably be more comfortable doing it in St. Charles.

*Jeepers creepers. Does anyone else find someone with the handle "HesterPrynne" denouncing "fornication without consequence" to be just too much?

**C'mon now, Hester. Fornication - i.e. gettin' around - doesn't result in inbreeding! If anything, that spreads the genes around. Royal families and arranged marriages result in inbreeding!

Thursday, May 26, 2011

The Worst

If you'd like to see what it looks like when our neighbors bring out their worst, it's right here. Ugh.

Saturday, April 23, 2011

Maybe We Could Build This Really Big Wall...

For the past couple weeks, the PD has been covering how white people have been getting really upset and demanding action on a very pressing issue: black kids are walking around the Loop and being all scary and shit. Between the articles themselves and the plentiful comments, it's hard to pick what ridiculous racism to highlight. But one thing really caught my attention and seems worth discussing on the internet: there is a commonly held belief among people who are scared by black kids that black kids should not be allowed to go to the same places that white people go to. Metrolink gets rather absurdly roped into this, and people end up essentially arguing for the deliberate creation of racial ghettos and the racial segregation of the St. Louis area.

First, though, let me address the obviously absurd comment of Blair Stiles in this article. Blair is 21 years old, and she lives in south St. Louis. Blair is young and lives in the city. Yet Blair tells the PD, with no apparent irony or self-awareness whatsoever, that "crowds of young, urban youth [redundancy sic]" are "pretty intimidating." By any reasonable (i.e. non-racialized) interpretation of the term, Blair Stiles is, herself, an urban youth. So unless Blair bizarrely felt like telling the newspaper that she is intimidated by her own peers, Blair means something by "urban youth" other than "young people who live in the city." Now, Blair probably doesn't mean "niggers," but she most definitely means "black kids," and when she's telling us how much they intimidate her with their mere presence, is there really much of a distinction there? I think Blair's comment is the most important one in all of the articles because it lets us really see the feelings that are at the heart of this issue: THERE ARE BLACK KIDS RUNNING FREE ON THE LOOP. And that makes white folks really uncomfortable!

So. Black kids - and we are talking about black kids here, even if only Blair Stiles, and even she indirectly, will come right out and say it - are showing up in the Loop in big groups, and this is bothering the patrons of the local businesses. After all, no one wants to be intimidated by the presence of "urban youths" while they're trying to see art-house movies, buy Wilco records, and eat frozen yogurt. Business owners don't want their patrons to be bothered because then they stop being patrons and business owners stop making money. Notice the dichotomy that emerges: we have the kids, and we have the patrons. One business owner makes it explicit in the article: "[The 'urban youth'] don't buy anything. They just ruin the experience for people who do come here to shop and support the loop." I have no idea if this is true or not, and I doubt whether anyone else really does either, but this whole discussion takes place in a context where it's assumed that the kids in question aren't spending any money in the Loop, just wandering around and harassing the good, American, paying consumers. This is a problem the consumers and the merchants want solved. And solving this problem means eliminating black kids from the Loop.

Two main ways to make this happen come up over and over again in the comment section and the articles themselves: a police crackdown on black kids on the Loop and making it more difficult for black kids to get to the Loop in the first place. The police crackdown obviously supports an idea I've pushed on this blog before: that racists are generally very authoritarian. The second solution is more bothersome to me (at least for today). It's basically an argument that says St. Louis is not segregated enough. If we can just keep the black kids in the ghettos on the North Side, we'll all be better off because we'll be able to go and see Rascal Flatts at the Pageant without having to feel that terrible feeling that comes with seeing black kids out and about.

MrSmith comes right out and says it: black kids shouldn't be allowed on the Loop.

MrSmith April 17 2011.png  on Aviary

This is so insane. I assume there are other areas of the city that black kids shouldn't be allowed in, according to MrSmith. And I suppose we'd have to install checkpoints at the entrances to these neighborhoods in order to make sure that "black youths were stopped from comming [sic] to" our new, pristine white-only neighborhoods. The existence of these checkpoints would raise all sorts of interesting logistical issues, most of which will be familiar to anyone who has thought critically about the Jim Crow laws of the past: Who decides whether or not a kid is black? Is it just up to a police officer to decide, based on how the kid looks? What about kids who appear racially ambiguous? Would you have to present papers proving your race? Do bi-racial kids get to come in? What if we draw a line around a new, white-only neighborhood and discover that a black family lives there? Did we get rid of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act? Can white people still go to "black" neighborhoods? Will there be Footlockers in the white neighborhoods?

I mean, wow. This is a person, in 2011, expressly arguing for the segregation of public areas! I'm sure that in the Jim Crow era there were plenty of streets a black person would not have been comfortable or safe walking down, but were there ever any that they were explicitly banned from? "Sorry, boy, can't come in here. This is the Loop, and its streets are just for white folks." Yeesh.

Some of the slightly more tactful racist motherfuckers who want to keep black kids from bothering the nice white consumers have found a convenient entity on which to blame the problem: Metrolink.
Here is just a sample of the comments that blame Metrolink for the presence of scary "urban youths" on the Loop, and / or explicitly argue that Metrolink is a bad thing because it allows black people to get out of the ghetto:

Captain Spaulding April 17 2011.png  on Aviary

I wish I knew what business intheloop owns, so that I could go loiter in front of it:

See, if only we didn't have public transit, the hoodlums would be stuck in the hood, and nice white folks would be able to go to the mall and walk down the streets without ever having to acknowledge that there was a ghetto in their city. The ghetto isn't a problem in and of itself, after all, it's only when people get out of the ghetto and scare me that its existence becomes a problem. So the solution is emphatically not to get rid of the ghetto. No, what we need to do is get rid of Metrolink and further ghettoize the north side. Maybe if we built a really big wall like Pat Buchannan wants to do with the Mexicans...

Where Is the PD's Racism Threshold?

I'm working on a longer post on this topic, but something struck me as I was reading through the comments on the various PD articles about the roving bands of "urban youth" terrorizing the white folks who just want some peace and quiet on the loop.

This thread is closed to further comments because there were too many racist comments being made. Here, look:

Bantam Weight Shutdown April 13 2011.png  on Aviary

There are other comments in that thread that the editor has removed because of racism. The editorial foot has been put down. Certain things are not acceptable and won't be allowed to stand on the PD's website.

What the editors let fly, though, makes me terrified of one day actually managing to read one of the things they delete. In the comments section of another article about the "Black Kids On The Loop!!!" controversey, this comment was allowed to remain:

Lancelot April 17 2011.png  on Aviary

I mean, Jesus. We all know what "thugs" really means, and I'm just not sure there is anything more obviously and explicitly racist than literally advocating shooting a particular group of people in the streets.

What could the racists who got the first thread shut down have possibly said to get their comments removed if that one is apparently acceptable?

Thursday, March 3, 2011

I'm Back, Suckas

A guilty verdict was handed down today in the trial of Todd Shepard, so he's looking at the death penalty for shooting a white cop in U. City a few years ago. Shepard, who's biracial but identifies as black, sounds like a god damn kook, and claims that he shot the officer, Sgt. Michael King in order to start some kind of revolution. It's also worth noting that he did it at least partly in retribution for the killing of his then-girlfriend, Annette Green, who was shot by a police officer during a drug raid on her home. Sgt. King is, at least indirectly, another victim of the war on drugs.

So, a black guy killed a white cop for explicitly racial reasons: an awful situation, sure to be made worse by our friends and neighbors commenting on the PD's website. I entered the "Discussion" with trepidation. I don't know whether it's been heavily edited or not, but the tone was far tamer than I was expecting. There are plenty of barbarians calling for Shepard's immediate murder or torture (one commenter suggests that Shepard be involuntarily used for parts[!]). Mostly the thread is a discussion of whether or not this should be have been prosecuted as a hate crime. The sensible commenters have noted that the prosecutor is seeking the death penalty as it is, so using Missouri's hate crime law, which just serves to increase punishments, wouldn't have done any practical good.

I actually think there's something to the argument that it would have been worth it to call this a hate crime for the sake of calling it a hate crime. Shepard's testimony left little doubt that he was motivated to commit this brutal murder by his victim's race. Commenters are predictably complaining that hate crimes only seem to apply to crimes where a member of the majority victimizes a member of the minority. I obviously condemn all racism, which is why I sympathize with the idea of calling this a hate crime. However, doing so might legitimize the idea that so many white racists seem to have the white people are being persecuted by the hateful thugs. The fact is, white racism is systemic and most hate crimes serve to reinforce the systemic advantage enjoyed by straight white males. Flamboyantly gay men get tied to fence posts. Black men who step out of line get dragged behind pick-up trucks. Women who dress too provocatively get raped. These things send the message that non-conformity with the norms of heterosexual white male supremacy are punished. That's what Shepard's crime - as awful and racially motivated as it was - is missing. So I'm ambivalent about whether this should be labelled a hate crime.

There's some solid hate on display in the comment thread though. One guy thinks he's sussed out why white people face so much discrimination at the hands of black folks:

I think. I can't really tell which direction the irony in this comment is going. The whole thing reads as sarcastic, but referring to "us poor tortured white people" makes it sound like he's doing something I might, i.e. sarcastically lamenting the plight of the white man in today's America. But the ironic assertion that blacks want to kill those poor white people on account of they have several ostensibly desirable traits makes me really think Folio is a racist.

As of when I captured this comment to preserve it for posterity, it had been on the PD's page for about an hour and a half:

I don't know if it will be thrown down the memory hole soon, but it probably ought to be, right? Most of the racist comments you find on the PD site aren't this... blatant. Normally you have to couch your racism in statistics you invented out of thin air. Just asserting ridiculous things about black people doesn't usually fly. We'll see what happens. In any case, holy shit that's racist!

Update: Changed the second comment to actually look like the one I wanted. Oops. Post should make sense now.

Update 2: The holy squad cars comment is now gone. Glad I got it!

Saturday, November 27, 2010

I Do Not Think This Movie Means What You Think it Means.

Somebody shot at the police on the North Side. That's a terrible situation. Leave it to the commenters on the PD website to make the worst of it.

Charles P. thinks everyone who runs from the police should be shot with a machine gun. Really:


He also, of course, calls for an expansion of the police department. At least he doesn't call for sending in the National Guard, which is a disturbingly frequent suggestion by conservative PD commenters. You know, the principled, small-government non-racists.

I like to think that stltodaybunny read my previous post on code words, and is trying to send me a message when he / she talks about "PUNKS":


Bring in the National Guard because the niggers have no self respect!

But the discussion thread's winner-so-far is very obviously Captain Spaulding, who appears to have seen District 9, but completely missed the point of its unsubtle commentary on Apartheid:


So there's the good Captain, watching District 9 and thinking to himself "Yeah! Awesome! Lock up those prawns!" I thought the anti-Apartheid message was laid on pretty thick, myself (setting the movie in South Africa? Really?), but I guess it wasn't thick enough for those who are sympathetic to the idea of quarantining an entire population in the first place.

It's also interesting that the white people who abandoned the city in the previous decades have adopted the Tea Party "take our country back" rhetoric to pretend that blacks have stolen it. Just like they used ACORN to steal the White House. Maybe Sarah Palin can hold a rally at the Edward Jones Dome where everyone can dress up like para-military tough guys and show those commies / blacks / libruls that we're going to take the Second Amendment into our own hands. Or, you know, send in the guard while we watch on TV.