DC Tom Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 The only person who would find racism in that article is a person who finds racism in everything. Like Dave in Elma... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 (edited) Like Dave in Elma... If he's arguing that DIE is a racist, that's one thing. But that's not exclusively what he's doing. He's saying the author is a racist, and his reasoning is because the article features a black person, who is considered lazy and complacent, and a white person, who is considered alert and taking advantage of the black person's laziness. The stupidity of Tgregg making the racist connection is best exemplified by me...your average, everyday conservative who not only has NEVER heard of either Harper or Heywood before, but has absolutely no idea what color their skin is. To me, it was an article (and a stupid one at that) about the laziness of a progressive versus the productivity of a conservative. Skin color never entered my mind. Until Tgregg pointed out that one is black and one is white. The racist here, I believe, may in fact be Tgregg, whose entire accusation of racism is based exclusively on the the color of Harper and Heywood's skin..a point that was never even mentioned in the article. It's sad when people only see the color of people's skin. And that's exactly and undeniably what Tgregg has done. Edited June 18, 2012 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 (edited) The only person who would find racism in that article is a person who finds racism in everything. There is nothing specifically in the article...NOTHING...that indicates racism. You see racism because one person is black and one is white, a point that wasn't even brought up in the story. Look, that was a dumbass story, but the fact that you found it racist tells us everything we need to know about you. Let me guess: you believe the reason Obama can't get anything done in Congress is because he's black, right? It's okay. You can admit it. Wait ... so you're saying because the author doesn't come out and say "hey! I'm a racist!" means there's no racism in that article? I'm a writer by trade. It's how I make my living. I'm very aware of subtext and how to wield it. This author is too -- though he's a clod and a ****ty writer. To say that there is no racist undertones (hell, they're overtones) in this article is just foolish. It's like saying Wallace most famous speech had no racial undertones: "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever..." He didn't say anything SPECIFICALLY about black people after all, right? Again, this has nothing to do with politics. You and 3rd are reacting because you see my posts as some sort of political attack. It's not. It has nothing to do with Obama, nothing to do with Romney. It has to do with someone on this board (DavetheRacistinElma) once again posting something that is a slam against black folks. Defending this article is as shameful as Davetheracist posting it in the first place. If he's arguing that DIE is a racist, that's one thing. But that's not exclusively what he's doing. He's saying the author is a racist, and his reasoning is because the article features a black person, who is considered lazy and complacent, and a white person, who is considered alert and taking advantage of the black person's laziness. The stupidity of Tgregg making the racist connection is best exemplified by me...your average, everyday conservative who not only has NEVER heard of either Harper or Heywood before, but has absolutely no idea what color their skin is. To me, it was an article (and a stupid one at that) about the laziness of a progressive versus the productivity of a conservative. Skin color never entered my mind. Until Tgregg pointed out that one is black and one is white. The racist here, I believe, may in fact be Tgregg, whose entire accusation of racism is based exclusively on the the color of Harper and Heywood's skin..a point that was never even mentioned in the article. It's sad when people only see the color of people's skin. And that's exactly and undeniably what Tgregg has done. Okay, now you made yourself out to be what DC loves calling people. You admit you don't know anything about either player (or baseball) so of COURSE you read that article and don't see color. You don't even know who the author is talking about. Which means you're not able to understand the subtext. Which, in essence makes everything your saying not only wrong, but idiotic. But you forget, the author KNOWS the subtext and CHOSE to use Hewyard as an example. It's a choice the author made. He could have chosen one of several white outfielders who have made similar errors (errors Bryce himself has made), but instead he chose not only a black athlete, but one of the best prospects in the game. So if you don't know what you're talking about, keep your mouth shut. It will help you look less like a fool. Edited June 18, 2012 by tgreg99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Wait ... so you're saying because the author doesn't come out and say "hey! I'm a racist!" means there's no racism in that article? I'm a writer by trade. It's how I make my living. I'm very aware of subtext and how to wield it. This author is too -- though he's a clod and a ****ty writer. To say that there is no racist undertones (hell, they're overtones) in this article is just foolish. It's like saying Wallace most famous speech had no racial undertones: I'm saying you're a racist simply because you inferred racism in that article based exclusively on the fact that you saw the names Harper and Heywood and ONLY saw the color of their skin. Period. I had no idea what color their skin was, and it never dawned on me to even question it while reading the story. But you? Right to skin color. And worse...you're basing this on "racist undertones" that only you can see because you make a living writing. And before anyone can disagree, you call them foolish. That makes you a racist to me every bit as much as it makes the author a racist to you. When you stop seeing people strictly for the color of the skin, you begin to stop being a racist. You should try it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Wait ... so you're saying because the author doesn't come out and say "hey! I'm a racist!" means there's no racism in that article? I'm a writer by trade. It's how I make my living. I'm very aware of subtext and how to wield it. This author is too -- though he's a clod and a ****ty writer. To say that there is no racist undertones (hell, they're overtones) in this article is just foolish. It's like saying Wallace most famous speech had no racial undertones: He didn't say anything SPECIFICALLY about black people after all, right? Again, this has nothing to do with politics. You and 3rd are reacting because you see my posts as some sort of political attack. It's not. It has nothing to do with Obama, nothing to do with Romney. It has to do with someone on this board (DavetheRacistinElma) once again posting something that is a slam against black folks. Defending this article is as shameful as Davetheracist posting it in the first place. Okay, now you made yourself out to be what DC loves calling people. You admit you don't know anything about either player (or baseball) so of COURSE you read that article and don't see color. You don't even know who the author is talking about. Which means you're not able to understand the subtext. But you forget, the author KNOWS the subtext and CHOSE to use Hewyard as an example. It's a choice the author made. He could have chosen one of several white outfielders who have made similar errors (errors Bryce himself has made), but instead he chose not only a black athlete, but one of the best prospects in the game. So if you don't know what you're talking about, keep your mouth shut. It will help you look less like a fool. Horseshit. This has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with you calling the article out as racist, thus making DIE a racist. Dave may be a racist but there's no reason to call him one based on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 (edited) I'm saying you're a racist simply because you inferred racism in that article based exclusively on the fact that you saw the names Harper and Heywood and ONLY saw the color of their skin. Period. I had no idea what color their skin was, and it never dawned on me to even question it while reading the story. But you? Right to skin color. And worse...you're basing this on "racist undertones" that only you can see because you make a living writing. And before anyone can disagree, you call them foolish. That makes you a racist to me every bit as much as it makes the author a racist to you. When you stop seeing people strictly for the color of the skin, you begin to stop being a racist. You should try it. I don't say that as a writer I'm the only one capable of seeing subtext. I've never said that. What I have said is that it's impossible for someone who doesn't understand the subject being discussed (like yourself) to see the subtext that is right there in your face. Read the article. Sound out the big words if you need to, but read the article. Then go and look up Hewyard. Then read it again. Horseshit. This has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with you calling the article out as racist, thus making DIE a racist. Dave may be a racist but there's no reason to call him one based on this thread. DaveinElma has already proved himself to be a racist. I didn't have to do anything to call him out for it. All this article does is reaffirm that. And yes, the author is a racist ass hat for writing this. Those are my only two points. Edited June 18, 2012 by tgreg99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Tgregg you're wrong on this one, man......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 I don't say that as a writer I'm the only one capable of seeing subtext. I've never said that. What I have said is that it's impossible for someone who doesn't understand the subject being discussed (like yourself) to see the subtext that is right there in your face. Read the article. Sound out the big words if you need to, but read the article. Then go and look up Hewyard. Then read it again. I will have to read the article again...but I will also have to disagree, based on my first two readings of it. The author struck me as less a racist than he did a clod who couldn't find his own ass with both hands, much less make a coherent point with a half-assed metaphor in a painfully written article. And while all racists are dipshits, not all dipshits are racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 I will have to read the article again...but I will also have to disagree, based on my first two readings of it. The author struck me as less a racist than he did a clod who couldn't find his own ass with both hands, much less make a coherent point with a half-assed metaphor in a painfully written article. And while all racists are dipshits, not all dipshits are racist. 100% agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 I don't say that as a writer I'm the only one capable of seeing subtext. I've never said that. What I have said is that it's impossible for someone who doesn't understand the subject being discussed (like yourself) to see the subtext that is right there in your face. Read the article. Sound out the big words if you need to, but read the article. Then go and look up Hewyard. Then read it again. DaveinElma has already proved himself to be a racist. I didn't have to do anything to call him out for it. All this article does is reaffirm that. And yes, the author is a racist ass hat for writing this. Those are my only two points. I don't see any racism in the article, just poor writing. So, you feel ok to call DIE a racist no matter what he posts? If he decides to post an article on "energy independence" are you going to call him a !@#$ing racist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 I don't see any racism in the article, just poor writing. So, you feel ok to call DIE a racist no matter what he posts? If he decides to post an article on "energy independence" are you going to call him a !@#$ing racist? If DIE posts an article on energy independence, he's still a !@#$ing racist. Just maybe not for that particular article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 I don't see any racism in the article, just poor writing. So, you feel ok to call DIE a racist no matter what he posts? If he decides to post an article on "energy independence" are you going to call him a !@#$ing racist? Yes. Because he IS one. That's not even open to debate and I'm not the only one on here who believes that. But it will have nothing to do with the article he posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 I don't say that as a writer I'm the only one capable of seeing subtext. I've never said that. What I have said is that it's impossible for someone who doesn't understand the subject being discussed (like yourself) to see the subtext that is right there in your face. All you're doing now is showing yourself to be more of a racist than I originally thought. You see, I did read the article and I DID understand the subject being discussed. We have two baseball players; one is lazy and one is productive. Metaphorically, the lazy one represented teacher union-like progressives and the productive one represented conservatives who make no excuses and always give 100%. Granted, it was a poorly written and ill-conceived article, but it never even dawned on me...not even at the slightest...that race had ANYTHING to do with this article. Read the article. Sound out the big words if you need to, but read the article. Then go and look up Hewyard. Then read it again. This is what I mean about you being a racist. Not only do you NEED this to be about skin color, but you need ME to see it about skin color, and the way de-code the secret "black are lazy, whites are productive" message is to not only read the article a second time, but then to "look up Heyward" and then to "read it again" a THIRD time. That's an awful lot of effort just to find something that isn't there. Would it help if I used my Little Orphan Annie Decoder Ring, or will I just end up being told to drink more Ovaltine? Wait. Ovaltine is brown. And without white milk, Ovaltine is nothing but a useless, unproductive powder. Ovaltine must be racist, too!!! If you can't see how freaking stupid you sound right now, there's little else for me to do here. You're no better than DIE at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Yes. Because he IS one. That's not even open to debate and I'm not the only one on here who believes that. But it will have nothing to do with the article he posts. So no matter what he posts you're going to call him out as a racist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 So no matter what he posts you're going to call him out as a racist? Uhhhh... Yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 I didn't read the article but I don't see Harper or Heyward as a skin color. I see them both as people who will get their butts kicked by the WORLD CHAMPION Cardinals. But there is racism in sports. Yes, even on the Bills. Do you think an all pro safety would have been cut if he was a white guy named Don instead of a black guy named Donte? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 I didn't read the article but I don't see Harper or Heyward as a skin color. I see them both as people who will get their butts kicked by the WORLD CHAMPION Cardinals. But there is racism in sports. Yes, even on the Bills. Do you think an all pro safety would have been cut if he was a white guy named Don instead of a black guy named Donte? What if he was a black guy named Jim Leonhard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 What if he was a black guy named Jim Leonhard? Oh, so now Ralph isn't a racist because "I cut one white guy". Give me a break. Thats like saying, "I'm not a racist because FJ is my favorite player." Pathetic. Ralph's a racist, you're a racist and both of you should own it like the racist a**hats you are, a$$hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Oh, so now Ralph isn't a racist because "I cut one white guy". Give me a break. Thats like saying, "I'm not a racist because FJ is my favorite player." Pathetic. Ralph's a racist, you're a racist and both of you should own it like the racist a**hats you are, a$$hat. Be carefull, you're making Crayonz sound normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 100% agree with that. Yeah, I just read it again. And while it wouldn't surprise me at all if DIE took a "!@#$s are lazy" message away from the op-ed...there's no racism, overt or covert, I could see otherwise. Frankly, I think the author is too stupid to be racist. He wields metaphor like a cinder block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts