Chuck and his readers respond to my recent posts in response to his own on the question of the racial angle regarding "street harassment":
"Obsidian responds to my series of articles on race and street harassment. His main argument is: show me the statistics. But I doubt the police or the FBI are going to start tallying street harassment stats anytime soon, and especially as long as it’s not considered a crime."
O: Au contraire good sir - for if, as the lasses say, they are indeed being pulled about this way and that by all these hissing and wolf-whistling Brothas and Latinos, well then, that's assault - which is most assuredly a crime, and should be prosecuted as such. That should be reflected in the overall crime stats - yes?
Anyway, to be frank and to move on to a few of Chuck's reader responses, given that his previous post on the matter erupted into an orgy of comments, the current post of his on the matter generated just over 20 all told!-I'm insulted.
Nevertheless, I thought it instructive to post up a few of the comments with my followed by my response; feel free to register your own in the comments section below.
Heartiste, formerly the Dark Lord known as Roissy leads off the hit parade:
"Obsidian’s concern for lack of statistical proof is charming when he can use it to muddy the waters, because it’s a good bet his concern does not extend to the actual statistical proof he pretends to value, like FBI data on crime rates by race."
O: OK, hold it - one of the first things Roissy and others in the loosely-defined HBDsphere do when discussing anythning, is haul out all manner of statistical graphs and sliderules, all while dismissing anyone and everyone who offers anything in the least bit anecdotal - and now, when the Brotha goes to the data as a first principle, it's no good? Anecdote can and must, suffice? Really?
You can't make this stuff up.
At any rate, please note how the R-Man tries to suggest that I'm being intellectually dishonest, which is quite interesting given the fact that here is a Man who does not in any way deny how low he is willing to stoop when it comes to such things himself, especially with the ladies. No, Roissy/Chateau/Heartiste/Whatever You're Calling Yourself This Week - I am only doing what you and so many of your ilk claim to high heaven me and mine don't do - which is to deal, first and foremost, with the evidence - which states, unequivocally, that violent crime of ALL kinds, has and continues to go down, FOR ALL RACIAL GROUPS, over the past few decades. This is per FBI crime data, too. You can't have it both ways - evidence when it suits you, and anecdote when it suits you. Nor can your anecdotal "evidence" trump mine. Why? Simple: because, aside from the fact that I actually am a Black Man and you're not, I also know a heck of a lot more Black and Latino Men than you do, in far more variegated settings, from the Badlands to the Boogie Down and beyond, and have observed countless numbers of them over the years - and can tell you that this notion that "everyone knows" argument is rubbish. Try again - hopefully, with something a bit more than what you droned on about over at Chuck's blog to back you up this time. Check this out "bro" - your problem ain't Wendell - it's Wendy. As she showed you several years back, and as her Sisters across the country showed your fellow bros earlier this month, they can and will seriously f*ck you up seven ways to Sunday if you say or do anything they don't much approve of. Alphas don't scapegoat and hate on others - they take their enemies head on. Chop chop, son!
Lara offers the following series of comments, my own replies to which are interspersed:
"I like how Obsidian admits he pleaded with you to distance yourself from your commenters. I would like to ask him what would have been in it for you."
O: Uh, I don't know - a bit more credibility, perhaps (to say nothing of the slightest chance of actually parlaying his blogging love into a paying gig)?
Look, and I've told Chuck this offlist - I think he's an above average writer with a keen talent for observation, who has a golden opportunity to write about a segment of American society that has, to be frank, been shat on for decades - Working Class Whites. Murray opened the conversation up in a big way earlier this year with his "Coming Apart" but since then, few among the Chatterati has given a damn to take his lead or take things a step further - and that includes the so-called "Alt-Rightsphere", too. Because Chuck has solid White Working Class roots, and because he keeps a foot firmly rooted in that world as in his day job as a waiter, I think he really has a chance to give thoughtful, yet incisive commentary about life from that perspective, because if anyone needs an advocate, the White Working Class - particularly, especially, White Working Class Guys - need one. Chuck can be that voice, can be that advocate, a ready made niche for him in a seriously saturated field of wannabe writers and bloggers.
But if he continues to allow his blog - which is, make no mistake about it, a big part of his "brand" as a writer/blogger - to be mistaken for Stormfront Jr. - he can and will run the very real risk of being associated with disaffected, bigoted cranks, who can't be taken seriously about anything, to say nothing of continuing the tired White Guy Tactic of alienating anyone and everyone who could actually help him.
Take the current "street harassment" kerfuffle for example - if Chuck and Roissy were smart, they would have alliances with Brothas and Latinos who then could directly challenge the SWPL Feministas on their assertions, and raise some inconvenient truths about how and what they really feel about their ostensible "Sistas in Arms" - but that's not gonna happen, because White Guys on the Right have perfected the art of Alienating Errbody Who Ain't White Guys. The result?
They get got per Nov 6th, with no one there to get their back. And this can and will continue to happen, until they either get a clue, or wind up becoming an exhibit at the Smithsonian.
At any rate, the simple truth of the matter is that those who fill his commenter sections aren't doing him any favors, and his posts are fueling their antics. If Chuck really wants to accomplish something in this world, like I've noted above he has a golden opportunity. If on the other hand, he simply wants to Feed the Cranks, he is most certainly welcome to do so. Maybe he can make a goodly bit of coin doing it. Good luck with that...
"Dragnet’s comment is typical. Black men, even ones who enjoy being black men, are jealous of white men."
O: Calling Dragnet...
Actually, Dragnet made a few points that merit further discussion, especially in light of a recent conversation I had offlist with someone about all of that. I plan to give my take on what he said in the coming days; in the meantime, like I've said above, "calling Dragnet"...
"I wonder if white women, who are with black men, have to listen to a lot of trash talk about white men. I bet they do."
O: Not that I'm an expert on "swirling" or anything like that, but from what I've heard, actually, it's the other way around - White Women complain about White Men to their Black Men a heck of a lot more than the other way around...
Checkout the thread/post for yourselves and again, feel free to come to your own conclusions. One of the big takewaways - and ironies - of the post, is the fact that Chuck and Roissy are essentially siding with the very Hipster SWPL Feminist they otherwise claim to despise, all in an effort to blame Brothas for...something. They can't backup what they say in the light of actual crime data; they can't even offer any video proof anecdotally either; all we have to go on is the "everybody knows..." argument, which is BS in extremis. Chuck and Roissy know as much about Black Men as the SWPL Feminists do - which again, is quite ironic.
Again, you just can't make this stuff up. Whew.
Now adjourn your asses...