Slog Comments

 

Comments (61) RSS

Newest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
61
I think the problem with Katy Waldman's "teenagers are dumb" position is twofold. First, permissible dumbness has to have some sort of parameters. When I was 16, I tried buying booze with my Blockbuster membership card. That was dumb. Calling the president a n***** in a public forum? That's not dumb, that's completely unacceptable.

Which leads to the second problem: these "kids" really should incur some consequences for their actions, and if not Jezebel, then who? If it's a public school, the school may not have grounds to punish the kids since the conduct occured outside of school and is probably protected by the First Amendment. And if the kids are dropping n-bombs, chances are the parents are too (and if that's the case, what's the likelihood of a meaningful punishment from the parents?).

Katy's suggestion to the call the police would also be futile. These teens didn't do anything illegal (And cops have better things to do than monitor bad taste on the internet).

So I don't have any problems with Jezebel's piece, even it was motivated by commerce or other factors. There should be ramifications for calling someone a n*****, especially if done through the bullhorn that is in the internet.
Posted by dave1976 on November 12, 2012 at 7:44 AM · Report this
60
@36 When did "cunt" become a racist term?
Posted by madcap on November 12, 2012 at 2:24 AM · Report this
59
TBF, the Moses story does not indicate that the Amber Alert contributed to the girl's recovery. It only says the amber alert was cancelled and the man taken into custody.
Posted by K on November 12, 2012 at 1:22 AM · Report this
venomlash 58
@36: There was an exceptional event (the election of a black PotUS) that sparked a great deal of racist reaction by people across the country. Jezebel and many other organizations responded to this particular issue. If they wanted to chronicle all the racist tweets that dumb people make, they'd have to spend their entire lives in front of the computer.
It's not about racism in general. It doesn't claim to be about racism in general. There's no need for it to be about racism in general. It's about this one particular event.
And there's nothing wrong with ad hominem attacks as long as they are relevant. If the topic is racial tolerance, and you have a history of saying racially inflammatory things against blacks on this website, it's a valid point to bring up.
@42: [citation needed]
If you're telling the truth, you'd think we'd have heard about all these black mob attacks from people who don't have swastika tattoos.
Posted by venomlash on November 11, 2012 at 11:45 PM · Report this
57
The BBC molested a boy?
Posted by beef rallard on November 11, 2012 at 11:27 PM · Report this
56
@6: Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequences when you choose to spout hateful shit.
Posted by suddenlyorcas on November 11, 2012 at 9:20 PM · Report this
55
I think those dumbass kids ruined their own lives when they decided it would be awesome to send racist tweets out to the world. Seriously, in a few short years they will be adults. They should know better.
Posted by suddenlyorcas on November 11, 2012 at 9:19 PM · Report this
Sandiai 54
@49. I, for one, welcome our Black overlords.

Posted by Sandiai on November 11, 2012 at 8:08 PM · Report this
53
@50 I wasn't thinking about it, but yeah, I'm with you. If any white person deserves a beat-down from one of those notorious sixty black gangs that I keep hearing about (NOT), it's that racist honky "Andrew S.", who gets all upset and up in arms whenever some other racist peabrain thinks it's not offensive, demeaning, ignorant, and abusive to make racist comments.

Seriously. That's all he does on Slog. He dutifully patrols the posts as the self-designated defender of the right of white people to use the language of slave masters in the year 2012, for god's sake. It's his duty!

You know what, you backwards peabrain? The reason no one gives a damn about social conservatives anymore is because peabrains like you are their representatives. Keep patrolling Slog and blabbing about aggrieved white racist peabrains and we'll just keep winning elections.
Posted by floater on November 11, 2012 at 6:29 PM · Report this
52
Anybody who wants to talk about the double standard about the use of that word really needs to sit down and watch this video in which Jay Smooth of IllDoctrine.com nicely explains how it's not a double standard, just a standard.

http://www.animalnewyork.com/2012/ill-do…
Posted by Chris B http://eccentric-orbit.org on November 11, 2012 at 5:23 PM · Report this
51
49

that man in the White House is mocha....
Posted by black may not mean what you think it does... on November 11, 2012 at 5:00 PM · Report this
50
@Andrew S,

Forgot to add, I hope you collect a beat down from one of those 60+ Big Black mobs that you claim are roaming around Seattle. Like anybody believes your racist ass! Please.

Stick to Stormfront.
Posted by Patricia Kayden on November 11, 2012 at 4:56 PM · Report this
49
@Andrew S

So glad that your racist ass is upset. Yes, Black people rule the world. Get used to it, Punk. Go to Russia or some other White country if you don't like the US or the Black man who is in the White House for the next 4 years.

Very glad that Jezebel called out the little racist asses. And also glad that their school knows about their misconduct. No pity for them at all.
Posted by Patricia Kayden on November 11, 2012 at 4:52 PM · Report this
MrBaker 48
@ all, the "Bong Hits-4 Jesus" case shows how the 1st Anendment rights of school aged children are.
Posted by MrBaker http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ on November 11, 2012 at 4:31 PM · Report this
47
dude, they are kids, not adults. you can't let them get away with that shit. teach them lessons and stuff. this is the time. good work, jezebel.
Posted by ng53 on November 11, 2012 at 4:09 PM · Report this
46
@42
You really need to lay off getting your news from the Storm Front website.
Here is a clue for you - they make that shit up.
Posted by Senor Guy on November 11, 2012 at 4:00 PM · Report this
45
@42
"There have been 60 or so mob attacks in Seattle over the last couple years."

So that would be 30 a year.
Or more than 2 a month on average.
Do you have any documentation for that?
Because it sounds rather unusual.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on November 11, 2012 at 3:48 PM · Report this
julie russell 44
Hope the animal abusers do time!
Posted by julie russell http:// on November 11, 2012 at 3:38 PM · Report this
43
"Why the defensiveness on behalf of actually, objectively racist white people, huh? "

Why the lack of calling out of hate speech on actually, objectively racist black people, huh?
Posted by Andrew S. on November 11, 2012 at 3:16 PM · Report this
42
"there's little evidence that non-whites will violently attack whites on the basis of race, so the "it might cause violence" argument is out."

You are out of your mind. There have been 60 or so mob attacks in Seattle over the last couple years. Almost all being black on white or black on Asian. Just a coincidence! This same pattern has occured all over the country including an attack on whites by a black mob of over 200 at a Wiscounsin state fair. Your belief that white on black hate speech is more "dangerous" is false. Close to none of these mob attacks were prosecuted as hate crimes. When was the last time a mob of whites attacked a black person at random without it being labeled a hate crime? Probably around 1942.
Posted by Andrew S. on November 11, 2012 at 3:14 PM · Report this
41
39

Racially motivated violence by Black against Whites is not uncommon in this country.
If you get all your news from Slog you wouldn't know it, though....
Posted by open your eyez on November 11, 2012 at 3:13 PM · Report this
40
3

you first, bitch.

we noticed from your "mystrangeface" "about me" page that "seatackled has not written a bio."

How about you post your name, address, place of employment, email address and some (real) pictures....
Posted by You Are So Full of Shit on November 11, 2012 at 3:01 PM · Report this
39
@36 Let's go with your premise that calling out racist whites necessarily means calling all whites racist. So fucking what? People who aren't racist will know the critique is off and will just ignore it, no harm done. As was posted above, there's little evidence that non-whites will violently attack whites on the basis of race, so the "it might cause violence" argument is out.

Why the defensiveness on behalf of actually, objectively racist white people, huh?
Posted by sahara29 on November 11, 2012 at 2:37 PM · Report this
38
"But they're so YOUNG, how could they POSSIBLY be held accountable for what their parents teach them!?!"

Old enough to type on a computer is old enough to understand that racial slurs harm other people, and harming other people is bad. They deserve what they get.
Posted by sahara29 on November 11, 2012 at 2:25 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 37
@ 31, you might recall that all these tweets came after the black man was reelected. Not a white man. Also not a woman, nor a gay, Asian, or Jewish man. But you can bet you would have seen sexist, homophobic, anti-Asian or anti-Semetic tweets* if that WAS who won, and that's what we'd be talking about today. Would you then ask "what about anti-black racism?" I doubt it.

* No one would have posted any racist tweets in the event of a white male Democrat winning. Most African Americans vote Democratic.
Posted by Matt from Denver on November 11, 2012 at 2:10 PM · Report this
36
@35 Ad hominem attack. Nothing you wrote disputes what I said. Jezebel publically shamed a bunch on white teens who made racist statements. So the conclusion is that that whites are still big bad racists and we all need to be on the lookout for big bad white, and only white, racists. Look up tweets using search words "fag" "cunt" "hymie" "kike" "chink" "gook" or tweets making fun of rape, gay bashing or the holocaust and you'll find comments every bit as hateful, many by teens "of color". Why doesn't Jezebel out them while they are at it? It's a pattern of anti-racist activists to punish any white person who makes a racist comment while ignoring the ungodly amount of hate speech spewed by minorities. What did I say that is incorrect? Don't tell me you are fighting racism when you only going after whites for it. That's racist in itself.
Posted by Andrew S. on November 11, 2012 at 2:02 PM · Report this
venomlash 35
@31: I like how you're a Milford man until the issue of Negro People comes up. Then you're all concerned about making sure everyone is aware that they're not innocent either.
Statistically, white people are overwhelmingly more likely to commit racial hate crimes, while blacks are slightly more likely to target people based on sexual orientation or physical disability. The rates of overall hate crime offenses for each don't vary noticeably from population demographics, though. (source)
You may now return to your irrational prejudice against blacks.
Posted by venomlash on November 11, 2012 at 1:11 PM · Report this
notaboomer 34
stranger doesn't seem to want to talk about betrayus story.
Posted by notaboomer on November 11, 2012 at 1:10 PM · Report this
Tacoma Traveler 33
32, The internet makes idiots of us all, including me. I need coffee.
Posted by Tacoma Traveler on November 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM · Report this
originalcinner 32
@27 since when was calling someone by their own nick, that they chose for themselves, an insult?
Posted by originalcinner on November 11, 2012 at 12:55 PM · Report this
31
What this article and Jezebel purposely skate around is the reality that these tweets are no more racist than shit blacks also tweet. Yeah, find every racist post about Obama, or blacks, and punish the people who do it. How about doing the same when it comes to sexist, homophobic, anti-Asian, or anti-Jewish tweets? A dirty lil' secret is a pretty fair chunk come from "people of color". I wonder if Jezebel and co would dare persue hate speech if it was being done by minorities? If so, why do anti-racist activists never do so?
Posted by Andrew S. on November 11, 2012 at 12:53 PM · Report this
Bauhaus I 30
Hearing about animal cruelty - and this Spokane story was almost as cruel as it gets - makes me want to do things to the perpetrator that I wouldn't do to an animal ever. It calls into question my commitment to animal rights. Humans, after all, are animals, but they are the only ones as far as I can tell who are capable of purposeless harmful intent. One takes on the care and feeding of pet animals and decides to be cruel. If the owner was in a financial pinch, couldn't he/she have called the Human Society and asked what to do?

The whole idea of a pet store disgusts me anyway. Its time has passed. Blessings to those who attempted to and have saved the abandoned creatures.

Don't get me started on the shot swan. That's ruined my Sunday.
Posted by Bauhaus I on November 11, 2012 at 12:53 PM · Report this
Megan 29
@23: If you read the Jezebel article, you'll see that a lot of the kids go to schools with codes of conduct that address hateful speech or actions whether at school or at home. So if you go to a school like that and break your code of conduct, then I think it's fair for the school to take disciplinary action.
Posted by Megan on November 11, 2012 at 12:52 PM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 28
@27 Very funny.
Posted by Pope Peabrain on November 11, 2012 at 12:47 PM · Report this
Tacoma Traveler 27
I dont think this argument regarding Free Speech and the internet benefits from describing one's opponent as a peabrain simply because you disagree with them.

Doing so is kind of ironic. The whole point of the Jezebel article is that the internet has created a culture where people post horrible things online and feel that they should never have to bear someone calling them to account for that. Insulting people who disagree with the idea that Freedom of Speech means nobody can ever disagree with you or tell you that you are wrong is the exact same sort of trolling this article was intended to address.

So while I do agree with 24 in principle, I find his/her decision to attack another poster that we both disagree with objectionable.

If you want to establish yourself as the mature person in the room during an argument, you fail miserably the moment you begin making ad hominem attacks.
Posted by Tacoma Traveler on November 11, 2012 at 12:40 PM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 26
@24 As president Obama said at the U.N (paraphrasing) people say a lot of horrible things about me and I'll defend their right to say them.
Posted by Pope Peabrain on November 11, 2012 at 12:39 PM · Report this
Gern Blanston 25
Speaking of slurs, Seattle Sounder Marc Burch has been suspended three games by MLS, effectively for the rest of the season, for using a homophobic slur against an opponent during last Thursday's playoff match with Real Salt Lake. He also has to undergo sensitivity training.

http://seattletimes.com/html/soundersfcb…
Posted by Gern Blanston on November 11, 2012 at 12:15 PM · Report this
Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In 24
Hey MacCroc, here's a couple more eyes to roll.

Peabrain, please explain to me how you equate public exposure of someone's thoughts & actions to incarceration or denial of civil rights? Because, see, Peabrain, when you invoke "freedom of speech," you're bringing in what it is against: putting people in jail for what they say. What you're wanting is the exact opposite of freedom of speech, where a certain class of people can say whatever they like and no one gets to call them on it. Which was the situation where the concept of Free Speech originated: in 18th C. Europe where they still had aristocracy.

Does that make sense, Peabrain?
Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on November 11, 2012 at 12:15 PM · Report this
23
What do you expect their schools to do? Punish them? How can people be punished at school for making racist comments off campus while the UC school system recently issued a statement that anti-semitism on campus is protected free speech? When was the last time anyone who is was not white was punished for bigoted comments made off campus? It seems like the anti-racism police are only interested in persuing cases of racism when those who do it are white. Kinda racist!
Posted by Andrew S. on November 11, 2012 at 12:06 PM · Report this
22
So Democratic incumbent Marion Barry said during his reelection speech that "dirty Asians" need to go and refused to apologize for it= no consequences.
Our Presidents spiritual advisor tells his grandchildren that Jews won't let him talk to Obama. He also promotes the black hate group Nation of Islam No consequences.
A teenger talk about Obama the way they hear rappers talk about blacks, gays, women, Jews and Asians then all hell breaks loose.
How about going on twitter and looking at all the anti-gay, anti-woman and anti-Jewish hate speech spewed by blacks then doing the same thing you did to these white kids? Is fighting racism when it comes from blacks off limits? It certainly seems like it is.
It is amazing at the self ritcheousness of people who want to make sure no white person ever utters an unkind word about blacks but is willing to give a free pass to hate speech by blacks even when it is by well respected members of the black community. But you have no problem picking on teenagers. Pathetic. How about some of you self ritcheous racism hunters come out and protest the next time Louis Farrkhan speaks on a college campus? He has spoke at a dozen this year- including UC Berkeley and Howard U- without a peep from the racism hunters.
Posted by Andrew S. on November 11, 2012 at 12:02 PM · Report this
tedb310 21
I think informing school administrators regarding the tweets was good. Writing an article about it online not so good. I agree with the just of Katy Waldman's article. As the father of 16 & 18 year old boys I know adolescence causes a temporary IQ drop in most kids. Give these kids a chance to learn and grow. Also I have to say I have a hard time with comments that basically say "Expose them!" and are then signed by psueodonyms.
Posted by tedb310 on November 11, 2012 at 11:55 AM · Report this
JensR 20
@6 No its not. In the same way that insulting someone will result in you not being invited to their dinner parties again. We show what is and what isn't ok by socially punishing others.

Thats the beauty of it. If I start arguing for some really heinous shit - people will treat me differently. They can't stop me, but they can ignore me, block me, scream loudly next to me...
Posted by JensR http://ohyran.se on November 11, 2012 at 11:46 AM · Report this
Tacoma Traveler 19
16, perhaps so, but one should never make it so easy for one's opponents to destroy you.

The mere accusation of pedophilia is enough to ruin anyone's career. This is true even if one leads a fairly anonymous life. for someone who's career is based on public opinion, its devastating.

Before making such an accusation, several things need to be true. 1) There has to be real, solid evidence that the crime actually took place, and that the accused really is guilty. 2) There must be some reason to believe that either past victims will benefit from exposing said pedophile, or that future victims will be protected from harm by doing so.

Remember the Satanic Ritual Abuse scandal of the late 1980's? People thought daycare providers across America were using kids for Satantic rituals involving sexual abuse. This became a moral panic, and several people went to jail for crimes that never took place. I'm sure it was alot of fun for the reporters back in the day, and since none of them had to suffer any consequences for having ruined people's lives, you can still see many of those same reporters on TV. The West Memphis Three didn't think it was very fun, though.

There are genuine and real monsters out there, Jerry Sanduskys and Jimmy Saviles and Catholic Priests. They leave lots of evidence behind. be careful in your quest to burn the witches that you don't throw any innocent bystanders onto the bonfire.
Posted by Tacoma Traveler on November 11, 2012 at 11:41 AM · Report this
MacCrocodile 18
@6 - SOMEONE HELP MY ROLL EYES AT THIS GUY. I ONLY HAVE TWO EYES TO ROLL.

When people say good things to you, do you not reward them with positive behavior or words of your own? Why should shitty words and behavior not be met with their own social consequences?

Please note the difference between social and legal consequences. The difference is everything when discussing freedom of speech.
Posted by MacCrocodile http://maccrocodile.com/ on November 11, 2012 at 11:33 AM · Report this
17
If these tweeters were in the work force or even in college, I'd be fine with it. Freedom of speech does not preclude responsibility for your speech. However, they're still dumb adolescents.. Maybe contacting the school administraters and telling them that some unnamed students who had been traced to their school had made racist comments would have been appropriate, so that the school could maybe address the issue with the student body as a whole, but this seems a bit far.
Posted by Beguine on November 11, 2012 at 11:30 AM · Report this
Fnarf 16
How on earth can you "ruin the life" of someone who already lives in Mississippi?

All the stories about bad stuff at the BBC need to be taken in context. The Tories want to shut the BBC down, and are playing up these stories for all they are worth and more.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on November 11, 2012 at 11:24 AM · Report this
15
The problem is that the Tory Lord that everyone deduced they were talking about turned out to not be the guy who the victim accused. The police apparently told the victim in the 80s that's who he identified from a photo, but in fact it was someone else. The BBC apparently ran the story based on that one victim's report, which he has since recanted.

Shoddy journalism, an even worse when it's on the issue of child molestation. Heads deserve to roll over that, and not just the Director General of a few months.

As the comments on the twitter story indicate, there are consequences to speech.
Posted by madcap on November 11, 2012 at 11:22 AM · Report this
Fistique 14
Regarding the BBC, what actually happened was that they broadcast the claims of an abuse victim that one of his abusers had been a Tory Lord, without naming the Lord in question. The fallout the Beeb is suffering for this "offense" is disproportionate and likely related to the ongoing power of the Tory hierarchy to control acceptable discourse in Britain.
Posted by Fistique on November 11, 2012 at 10:56 AM · Report this
13

Happy Veterans' Day
11/11

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on November 11, 2012 at 10:50 AM · Report this
Tacoma Traveler 12
The First Ammendement reads that Congress shall make no law inhibiting Freedom of Speech. Jezebel is not Congress. Neither is Jezebel making a law of any kind.

People have come to see the Constitution as Civil Religion, something that can be invoked to declare that a given act committed by any individual is a sin against our national principles. It is nothing of the kind. In fact, the Constitution is Law, and just like any other legal document, it is enforced as written.

Whenever someone claims that I am violating the First Amendment by telling them to shut up, I respond that if that's the case they can go call a cop. The same is true when people whine about the Second Amendment if I express a desire for gun control. I am not Congress, and the Constitution nor any of its Amendments demand anything of me, nor do they restrict my actions.
Posted by Tacoma Traveler on November 11, 2012 at 10:36 AM · Report this
11
It's still OK to call the president an ape, right? Because we're all African apes? Cool.

(Relax, "honkies", I voted for him too.)
Posted by catsnbanjos on November 11, 2012 at 10:30 AM · Report this
10
"There’s a difference between being forbidden to say something and having to pay for what you said." -Marc Maron

I'd rather these little brats be called out for their ridiculously antisocial behavior than see people sit on their hands, talking amongst themselves about how awful and bad it is that "some people" talk in ways that they themselves don't approve of. If only SOMEONE would do something about this.
Posted by Chris B http://eccentric-orbit.org on November 11, 2012 at 10:20 AM · Report this
9
Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from the consequences of that speech. It only means that the government cannot censor you for what you say. These little twits want to be able to spout their ignorance and hatred without having to face criticism for it. Consequences do not constitute censorship.
Posted by Jenkitty on November 11, 2012 at 10:15 AM · Report this
NotSean 8
The pet store owners say the landlord locked them out, thereby preventing them from taking care of thr animals.

Even so, the animals were still their's to care for. Thay could've publicized the landlord's actions, donated the animals to homes or other sellers. Heck, anything but letting them die of starvation in their own filth.
Posted by NotSean on November 11, 2012 at 10:15 AM · Report this
Tacoma Traveler 7
Remember that scene in Borat where Sacha Baron Cohen is int he trailer with those two guys that said they would reimpose slavery if they could? The same people declaring the tweet outing of these teens laughed their asses off in the movie theater, and do not see the contradiction.
Posted by Tacoma Traveler on November 11, 2012 at 10:09 AM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 6
@5 No doubt they learned it from their parents. For that reason, I say no. And they have free speech rights as well. If you start punishing people, are they really free?
Posted by Pope Peabrain on November 11, 2012 at 10:07 AM · Report this
MacCrocodile 5
It seems like an awful lot of effort to humiliate a teenager, so I couldn't say if it was worth it, but dumbasses who say dumbass things ought not be surprised when people with authority over them hold them accountable for the dumbassery they have wrought with their own dumbass hands.
Posted by MacCrocodile http://maccrocodile.com/ on November 11, 2012 at 10:02 AM · Report this
seatackled 4
And speaking of outing, there's a question running around that the cuckolded husband of Patraeus's mistress wrote to the Ethicists at the Times.

http://gothamist.com/2012/11/10/did_the_…

I want to know now if the guy wrote to Dan for advice, too.
Posted by seatackled on November 11, 2012 at 9:40 AM · Report this
seatackled 3
I don't have a problem with exposing these young adults. We wouldn't mind outing our anonymous troll here, right?
Posted by seatackled on November 11, 2012 at 9:30 AM · Report this
long-time reader 2
Yeah, any ruination that results from this can be blamed only on their own foolish selves. As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Freedom of speech means you're free to say stupid, hateful things, and I'm free to call you out on it.
Posted by long-time reader on November 11, 2012 at 9:27 AM · Report this
scary tyler moore 1
if jezebel hadn't reported these lil honkies, someone else would have done. ruined their lives? hardly. these idiots forgot that the internet isn't written in pencil, it's written in ink.
Posted by scary tyler moore http://pushymcshove.blogspot.com/ on November 11, 2012 at 9:19 AM · Report this

Add a comment