When I said I "read this article first on another site a couple of days ago" I was trying to say I read a similar article (hints the "another site"). I allude to this in the following 3-5 posts as well.

I can't remember now, but I think I was saying that I had heard of the KO game, but never heard anyone mention it as a game that was necessarily blacks hitting white- or in any other way a game that involved any racist behavior.

This is my first post after I linked the article:

I am admitting I read a similar article previously that didn't mention the KO game as a game with one race vs another race.

My next post I admit that the article is racist and that I was posting it because it was an article supporting the right to have a gun.

I don't know what I could have said that would have been more anti-racism than what I said. The article I meant to post had absolutely nothing to do with racism (in that story I don't recall the races of the old woman or young man, but it is probably safe to assume if it was one black and one white that the author wasn't turning it into a race issue).

Words, how do they work?

I actually read this article first on another site a couple of days ago
I actually read this article first on another site a couple of days ago
I actually read this article first on another site a couple of days ago
I actually read this article first on another site a couple of days ago
I actually read this article first on another site a couple of days ago
I actually read this article first on another site a couple of days ago

Which you posted because it was pointed out that you linked to a site designed to fool racist idiots. Your first reaction was to snarkily blame posters for smearing the tea party, to argue that the knockout game didn't have racist connotations, and to say that you had read the article on another site, googled to find it, found the link to the site designed to fool racist idiots, and that was the only reason that you linked to the site designed to fool racist idiots. It is clearly not either an apology nor an admission that the article was racist. You spend half a page arguing that the article isn't trying to portray the knockout game as a racial issue, then whine about the site being designed to fool conservatives into saying something they didn't believe, whine that people turned it into a racial issue, whined that just because you posted an example that was made up and racist that doesn't mean we can disregard the article, and whined that we couldn't expect you to know that the knockout game had racist connotations. Sure, after the article became indefensible you walked it back and tried to play it off like you didn't read it and it was kind of racist (although just because you didn't read the article didn't mean your point was invalid and just because it was racist doesn't mean it was really racist. Latinos like baseball and all) A

Any explanation about not reading before posting is simply nonsense and wishcasting. You googled some random other article, which you never posted ever, and somehow ended up posting this racist article through your google search? That doesn't make a lick of sense logically or in context. You got busted posting racist garbage and tried to walk it back. Plain and simple.

Glad we had this chat here though bahbah, Im thoroughly happy with my portrayal of events and think reality is pretty evident to all readers.

Stop being mean. As AlexM would say - BahBah was probably just using a different meaning of "this article". WHY ARE YOU SO MEAN!?!?!?!?!

Trying to walk it back as saying "hey Im not racist, I didn't read the article before I posted" while simultaneously whining that others brought race into the issue, simultaneously arguing that the point the one line post with a racist article was trying to make was still correct even though the only support was a fictional racist article that bahbah supposedly hadn't read read, and simultaneously arguing that the entire black-on-white knockout game crap the article was actually about wasn't what the argument was about is pretty ballsy.

As just explained above: I said I read "this article" on another site, but I meant to say I read a similar story on another site. I thought when I said the article I meant to post didn't have racist stuff in it that that would imply that they were 2 different articles.

And, yes I said the KO game didn't have racist connotations, because up to that point I had never heard the KO game described as a race v race type game. Up to that point I had never heard it portrayed as a game played primarily by one race or another. From my 2nd post ITT responding to the article: "Did it really say that the KO game was always blacks on whites or was that created ITT, because I've never heard the game described as that."

Please explain how my 3rd post responding to the article that says " I agree there are definitely racist undertones in the article it wasn't like I am supporting them" is not admitting the article is racist?

Ive rested my case bahbah. You may notice the absence of a cavalry coming to your defense. Your first line of your latest post is an obvious lie, as explained above.

If you want to talk politics with any credibility or not be thought of as a racist, you should really nuke your bahbah account from orbit, start again, and try not to say a bunch of racist and/or stupid things next time around.

IDK bro. Like, I don't even like Gambool, and I'm neutral WRT you due to lacking exposure, and I'm telling you: Your defense is very weak when all the facts are laid out. Just saying.

gambools 4 main arguments:

1: you said the article wasn't racist

a) Please explain how my 3rd post responding to the article that says " I agree there are definitely racist undertones in the article it wasn't like I am supporting them" is not admitting the article is racist?

2: but, but, but it took you a really long time to admit it was racist

a) no, my 3rd post that admitted the article was racist was within like 10-15 minutes of reading whoever's post it was that pointed out the obvious racist undertones of the article.

3: you said you already read the article before you linked it

a) I did say I read the article on a different site that didn't have racist undertones in it like this one did. Which leads us to believe I actually read a similar article that wasn't racist and was actually focused on the topic at hand.

4: you brought up the KO game and you knew it was a racist game

a) From my 2nd post in that thread responding to the article: "Did it really say that the KO game was always blacks on whites or was that created ITT, because I've never heard the game described as that."


Every chance I have been given I have called the article racist and attempted to distance myself from it. However, gambool has done a very good job in trying to tie me to it, even when we are on a totally different topic. He will claim I am racist for saying almost anything and his proof that whatever non-racist thing I said is racist is because I linked a racist article a year or so ago.


My defense is rock solid in this case, as it is in every case gambool or wookie claim I said something racist.

Anyone think just engaging bahbah and showing him why any of his posts are racist is going to be a useful/fruitful exercise?

3 is suspicious. What article was it that you actually had read? How long did it take you to clarify this in that thread? If you cleared this up right away and shared the original article you HAD read then it would help your case.

For A 4 significant for poor inner city kids, and 1 for kids that grow up in a stable home.

For B I dont know. Thats why I posted the question.

I do think that the Zimmerman shooting of TM was a complete miscarriage of justice. Zimmerman did follow him partly for the way he was dressed, so it made me wonder if fashion played a part in some of the other bad shootings.

Sure. His probably going to be more careful when linking articles in future.

I'm not sure how to find the original article. Keep in mind this was 8 months ago. Btw, I tried reading the racist article and the link didn't work.

If you look back at the thread I made it clear immediately that the racist article wasn't the one meant to post. I agree I should have found the original article and posted but I didn't think of doing that at that time and never imaged that Gambool would remind me of this racist article once a week for the following 8+ months. Otherwise I would have invested an hour of my life to clarify this, because now I have spent well over 5 hours dealing with this mistake.

So it's your opinion that the influence of hip hop on criminality is moderated by wealth and family stability? Tough to isolate hip hop, given that criminality and SES are so interwoven.

Would you give similar numbers for other ethnicities?

gambool, did i miss anything when i refuted your 4 points about me accidentally posting that racist article? I would love to squash this **** so we can move onto the next thing you claim I am racist for.

It is only one aspect of it, but I thought it was worth talking about.

Other ethnic groups is too broad a term to answer that question.

FWIW, an old (2003) APA research review, suggesting exposure to aggressive/violent lyrics can influence aggressive/violent actions. Just looked on my phone, haven't thoroughly reviewed it.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/violent.aspx

What about the poor inner city kids that are growing up in a stable home?

This false dichotomy is itself evidence of a racist mindset.

I answered all these type of questions in the other thread and have no wish to answer them again.

So read the other thread.

C'mon man, if you routinely write things like "I actually read this article" when what you really mean is "I actually heard about this phenomenon", you can't be surprised that you're starting from a pretty deep hole. Even assuming you're telling the truth about your intent, that level of carelessness is just begging for a misunderstanding.

I don't have to read any other threads, you just divided the universe of black kids into two separate groups: "poor inner city" and "growing up in stable homes". This is obviously wrong, and the fact that you so casually make this generalization is, you know, evidence.

Ok. AFAIK these are the only posts that hold any relevance at all from that thread, please show where you answered Duker's question I can't quite find it.

So to recap, you come into a thread to whine about being called a racist, proceed to say something racist, and your defense is "go read another thread"? Cool story I guess. Like, even if you had defended yourself adequately in the other thread, it's not like that gives you immunity for all the future racist **** you're going to say.

Its there. But if to end this I will answer Duker question.


As I already stated in the other thread I was only referring to at risk inner city kids. Ones that grow up with single parents that have addiction problems or where the parent is working all the time leaving those kids to raise themselves.