I'm bringing the specter of race to park slope.

Subject: blognigger's post re: this thread

Just dropped by to see what you guys thought about blognigger's obsession with this thread and the % of you who have engaged in shameless asskissery within.

How do you plead?

In case you haven't read it, the post is at: http://www.blognigger.com/2008/06/mexicans-internet-pure-gold.html

come on over, we'd love to open a lively discussion with yall

Subject: Re: blognigger's post re: this thread

smashbrother wrote: Just dropped by to see what you guys thought about blognigger's obsession with this thread and the % of you who have engaged in shameless asskissery within.

How do you plead?

In case you haven't read it, the post is at: http://www.blognigger.com/2008/06/mexicans-internet-pure-gold.html

come on over, we'd love to open a lively discussion with yall

....I only respond to troll bait when it at least TRIES to be subtle. No thanks.

Agreed, queencallipygos.

Appears to be just some race-baiting blogger wannabe trying to drive google ad revenue by provoking folks here with a garbage post. Totally violates personal attack policy here, so he had to post it on his own noob blog.

Not even worth the jump. Move along, folks...

<yawn>

Agreed, queencallipygos.

Appears to be just some race-baiting blogger wannabe trying to drive google ad revenue by provoking folks here with a garbage post. Totally violates personal attack policy here, so he had to post it on his own noob blog.

Not even worth the jump. Move along, folks...

<yawn>

Subject: denial?

Whatever, I have nothing to do with his blog, I'm just a reader.
He's a black guy, and yeah I'm white, but I don't have anything to do with the inflammatory name of his blog.

The fact is though, he's brought up some pretty interesting issues of race, class, and denial - and you're really only proving his point by being too closed-minded to discuss it.

The fact is, there are quite a lot of patronizing and condescending comments on your thread here, which suck up to the original poster, pretending that he's completely in the right and denying racial biases within yourselves. If you don't even want to look at bn's article that's up to you - don't want to support his blog? don't click on his damn ads - but don't you feel a tiny bit hypocritical and mcCarthyistic refusing to READ something critical of yourselves?

Like I said, you're proving his point already.

Subject: denial?

Whatever, I have nothing to do with his blog, I'm just a reader.
He's a black guy, and yeah I'm white, but I don't have anything to do with the inflammatory name of his blog.

The fact is though, he's brought up some pretty interesting issues of race, class, and denial - and you're really only proving his point by being too closed-minded to discuss it.

The fact is, there are quite a lot of patronizing and condescending comments on your thread here, which suck up to the original poster, pretending that he's completely in the right and denying racial biases within yourselves. If you don't even want to look at bn's article that's up to you - don't want to support his blog? don't click on his damn ads - but don't you feel a tiny bit hypocritical and mcCarthyistic refusing to READ something critical of yourselves?

Like I said, you're proving his point already.

btw, NOOB blog? lol. He was on freaking gawker last week you smug ignoramus:

http://gawker.com/tag/gentrification/?i=394761&t=a-black-park-slopers-thoughts-on-the-real-world-brooklyn

btw, NOOB blog? lol. He was on freaking gawker last week you smug ignoramus:

http://gawker.com/tag/gentrification/?i=394761&t=a-black-park-slopers-thoughts-on-the-real-world-brooklyn

smashbrother wrote: btw, NOOB blog? lol. He was on freaking gawker last week you smug ignoramus:

http://gawker.com/tag/gentrification/?i=394761&t=a-black-park-slopers-thoughts-on-the-real-world-brooklyn

Eh. I _much_ prefer their scandalous exposé on Oscar De La Hoya: Not A Cross Dresser After All.

smashbrother wrote: btw, NOOB blog? lol. He was on freaking gawker last week you smug ignoramus:

http://gawker.com/tag/gentrification/?i=394761&t=a-black-park-slopers-thoughts-on-the-real-world-brooklyn

Eh. I _much_ prefer their scandalous exposé on Oscar De La Hoya: Not A Cross Dresser After All.

Cause Gawker is something to be proud of!

Oh man, you're not doing this guy any favors

Cause Gawker is something to be proud of!

Oh man, you're not doing this guy any favors

Subject: Re: denial?

smashbrother wrote: The fact is, there are quite a lot of patronizing and condescending comments on your thread here, which suck up to the original poster, pretending that he's completely in the right and denying racial biases within yourselves. If you don't even want to look at bn's article that's up to you - don't want to support his blog? don't click on his damn ads - but don't you feel a tiny bit hypocritical and mcCarthyistic refusing to READ something critical of yourselves?

Like I said, you're proving his point already.

Honestly. We already have enough asshats here. Why should we travel to foreign shores to find new ones?

blog in question wrote: Not one person on this thread is saying what we all know is true, which is: Jesus Christ - Okay, $5 is low, but what the fuck is wrong with seeing two mexicans shoveling snow in the yard next door and assuming they are going yard-to-yard? I mean, come fucking on - how many brownstones are owned by mexicans? And how the FUCK was this poor white dickhead supposed to know that they were the one mexican family who owned a brownstone?

Not worthy of comment here, and certainly not worthy of travel for comment.

Subject: Re: denial?

smashbrother wrote: The fact is, there are quite a lot of patronizing and condescending comments on your thread here, which suck up to the original poster, pretending that he's completely in the right and denying racial biases within yourselves. If you don't even want to look at bn's article that's up to you - don't want to support his blog? don't click on his damn ads - but don't you feel a tiny bit hypocritical and mcCarthyistic refusing to READ something critical of yourselves?

Like I said, you're proving his point already.

Honestly. We already have enough asshats here. Why should we travel to foreign shores to find new ones?

blog in question wrote: Not one person on this thread is saying what we all know is true, which is: Jesus Christ - Okay, $5 is low, but what the fuck is wrong with seeing two mexicans shoveling snow in the yard next door and assuming they are going yard-to-yard? I mean, come fucking on - how many brownstones are owned by mexicans? And how the FUCK was this poor white dickhead supposed to know that they were the one mexican family who owned a brownstone?

Not worthy of comment here, and certainly not worthy of travel for comment.

Subject: Re: denial?

smashbrother wrote: Whatever, I have nothing to do with his blog, I'm just a reader.
He's a black guy, and yeah I'm white, but I don't have anything to do with the inflammatory name of his blog.

The fact is though, he's brought up some pretty interesting issues of race, class, and denial - and you're really only proving his point by being too closed-minded to discuss it.

The fact is, there are quite a lot of patronizing and condescending comments on your thread here, which suck up to the original poster, pretending that he's completely in the right and denying racial biases within yourselves. If you don't even want to look at bn's article that's up to you - don't want to support his blog? don't click on his damn ads - but don't you feel a tiny bit hypocritical and mcCarthyistic refusing to READ something critical of yourselves?

Like I said, you're proving his point already.

Oh, I read it. Where you see "interesting issues of race, class, and denial..." I see "trite 'commentary' perpetuated by someone who just barely grew out of the idea that fart jokes are Pulitzer calibre".

And I also read where he talked about how funny it would be to have someone in here post a link to see if we'd go over there all high and mighty.

Like I said, not subtle. The Ukranian judge is especially disappointed.

If you want attention that badly, you could always just try streaking.

Subject: Re: denial?

smashbrother wrote: Whatever, I have nothing to do with his blog, I'm just a reader.
He's a black guy, and yeah I'm white, but I don't have anything to do with the inflammatory name of his blog.

The fact is though, he's brought up some pretty interesting issues of race, class, and denial - and you're really only proving his point by being too closed-minded to discuss it.

The fact is, there are quite a lot of patronizing and condescending comments on your thread here, which suck up to the original poster, pretending that he's completely in the right and denying racial biases within yourselves. If you don't even want to look at bn's article that's up to you - don't want to support his blog? don't click on his damn ads - but don't you feel a tiny bit hypocritical and mcCarthyistic refusing to READ something critical of yourselves?

Like I said, you're proving his point already.

Oh, I read it. Where you see "interesting issues of race, class, and denial..." I see "trite 'commentary' perpetuated by someone who just barely grew out of the idea that fart jokes are Pulitzer calibre".

And I also read where he talked about how funny it would be to have someone in here post a link to see if we'd go over there all high and mighty.

Like I said, not subtle. The Ukranian judge is especially disappointed.

If you want attention that badly, you could always just try streaking.

Subject: Re: denial?

daver wrote: [quote=smashbrother]The fact is, there are quite a lot of patronizing and condescending comments on your thread here, which suck up to the original poster, pretending that he's completely in the right and denying racial biases within yourselves. If you don't even want to look at bn's article that's up to you - don't want to support his blog? don't click on his damn ads - but don't you feel a tiny bit hypocritical and mcCarthyistic refusing to READ something critical of yourselves?

Like I said, you're proving his point already.

Honestly. We already have enough asshats here. Why should we travel to foreign shores to find new ones?

blog in question wrote: Not one person on this thread is saying what we all know is true, which is: Jesus Christ - Okay, $5 is low, but what the fuck is wrong with seeing two mexicans shoveling snow in the yard next door and assuming they are going yard-to-yard? I mean, come fucking on - how many brownstones are owned by mexicans? And how the FUCK was this poor white dickhead supposed to know that they were the one mexican family who owned a brownstone?

Not worthy of comment here, and certainly not worthy of travel for comment.

I wanna know how this guy knows AW's family is mexican? is he a psychic non-stalker?

Subject: Re: denial?

daver wrote: [quote=smashbrother]The fact is, there are quite a lot of patronizing and condescending comments on your thread here, which suck up to the original poster, pretending that he's completely in the right and denying racial biases within yourselves. If you don't even want to look at bn's article that's up to you - don't want to support his blog? don't click on his damn ads - but don't you feel a tiny bit hypocritical and mcCarthyistic refusing to READ something critical of yourselves?

Like I said, you're proving his point already.

Honestly. We already have enough asshats here. Why should we travel to foreign shores to find new ones?

blog in question wrote: Not one person on this thread is saying what we all know is true, which is: Jesus Christ - Okay, $5 is low, but what the fuck is wrong with seeing two mexicans shoveling snow in the yard next door and assuming they are going yard-to-yard? I mean, come fucking on - how many brownstones are owned by mexicans? And how the FUCK was this poor white dickhead supposed to know that they were the one mexican family who owned a brownstone?

Not worthy of comment here, and certainly not worthy of travel for comment.

I wanna know how this guy knows AW's family is mexican? is he a psychic non-stalker?

smashbrother wrote: btw, NOOB blog? lol. He was on freaking gawker last week you smug ignoramus

His first blog post is April 27. Just reporting the facts...

smashbrother wrote: btw, NOOB blog? lol. He was on freaking gawker last week you smug ignoramus

His first blog post is April 27. Just reporting the facts...

I guess it's somewhat satisfyingly ironic that this "blognigger" guy, someone whose entire blog is centered around race, went all rantypants based on his completely incorrect assumption about someone else's race.

Still, I hope folks don't fall for this hamfisted attempt to pick a fight. Ugh, who needs that kind of drama?

I guess it's somewhat satisfyingly ironic that this "blognigger" guy, someone whose entire blog is centered around race, went all rantypants based on his completely incorrect assumption about someone else's race.

Still, I hope folks don't fall for this hamfisted attempt to pick a fight. Ugh, who needs that kind of drama?

smashbrother wrote: btw, NOOB blog? lol. He was on freaking gawker last week you smug ignoramus:

http://gawker.com/tag/gentrification/?i=394761&t=a-black-park-slopers-thoughts-on-the-real-world-brooklyn

I'm not aware that being picked up by Gawker suddenly endows you with an amazing number of experience points. If the blog is new, it's new.

I think there's a good chance that you're the guy behind that blog. If so, you can stop posting here in the third person (as if you're an impartial observer talking about a blog that does not belong to you).

--Update: After reviewing that blog, though, it is clear that an "Anonymous" commenter asked if someone else could go stir things up on Brooklynian.com. Hmm, I wonder who "Anonymous" might be.

Could somebody go back to that blog and wish them the best of luck in getting "internet attention" for their funny and "provocative" rants?

smashbrother wrote: btw, NOOB blog? lol. He was on freaking gawker last week you smug ignoramus:

http://gawker.com/tag/gentrification/?i=394761&t=a-black-park-slopers-thoughts-on-the-real-world-brooklyn

I'm not aware that being picked up by Gawker suddenly endows you with an amazing number of experience points. If the blog is new, it's new.

I think there's a good chance that you're the guy behind that blog. If so, you can stop posting here in the third person (as if you're an impartial observer talking about a blog that does not belong to you).

--Update: After reviewing that blog, though, it is clear that an "Anonymous" commenter asked if someone else could go stir things up on Brooklynian.com. Hmm, I wonder who "Anonymous" might be.

Could somebody go back to that blog and wish them the best of luck in getting "internet attention" for their funny and "provocative" rants?

dailyheights wrote: Could somebody go back to that blog and wish them the best of luck in getting "internet attention" for their funny and "provocative" rants?

:x Please don't. The mods have enough to deal with as it is, I'd say...

dailyheights wrote: Could somebody go back to that blog and wish them the best of luck in getting "internet attention" for their funny and "provocative" rants?

:x Please don't. The mods have enough to deal with as it is, I'd say...

queencallipygos wrote: [quote=dailyheights]Could somebody go back to that blog and wish them the best of luck in getting "internet attention" for their funny and "provocative" rants?

:x Please don't. The mods have enough to deal with as it is, I'd say...

Yeah, DH, I'm with the queen on this one. Unless YOU have the time over the next few days to keep an eye on this thread every three minutes.

queencallipygos wrote: [quote=dailyheights]Could somebody go back to that blog and wish them the best of luck in getting "internet attention" for their funny and "provocative" rants?

:x Please don't. The mods have enough to deal with as it is, I'd say...

Yeah, DH, I'm with the queen on this one. Unless YOU have the time over the next few days to keep an eye on this thread every three minutes.

that was a joke, playing on the comment that...

never mind.

that was a joke, playing on the comment that...

never mind.