Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsFriday, March 19, 2010
City Five Things That Came Up at the Meeting on Tim Burgess’s Civility Ordinance
Posted by Dominic Holden on Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 9:32 AM
This was posted late yesterday afternoon, and then moved up.
These were some of the themes:
One: Advocates were largely unified in arguing that the bill would solve problems that it wouldn’t address at all. They had a legitimate concern of danger downtown and cited many anecdotes. But the overwhelming majority of violent and annoying incidents they described wouldn’t be covered by the ordinance, which allows police to ticket solicitors who repeatedly ask for money from someone who refused, act intimidating when asking for money, or ask for money from a person using (or just after using) an ATM or pay parking station. Their examples were almost exclusively unpleasant panhandling or offenses covered by existing criminal laws, which carry stiffer penalties.
Mitch Evans, a regional manager of Starbucks, testified in favor of the ordinance because, he said, one of his employees “was assaulted going out to a car” and another one was “confronted at knife point,” and often people are “asked to leave a store because they are bothering our customers.”
Thomas Ditty, general manager of the monorail, favors the bill because a person on the monorail platform was “asking each person for change … we asked him to leave and then he left.” In another instance, a man was talking to women in line until monorail staff told him to leave, and then he left “shouting profanities.” Finally, Ditty said, sometimes “the smell of pot” prompts people to tell the cashier about it.
A man who runs a business near Westlake Park complained that a panhandler would “ask for money and then scream obscenities at anybody who would not give him money.” And a woman—who was actually testifying against the bill—noted that when her husband refused to give a man money, “he turned and punched my husband in face.” (The woman added, “How would this bill help my husband?”)
Richard Nordstrom, chair of the Belltown Community Council noted that an “intimidating environment is created when someone is physically close or verbally loud.”
But the civility bill “is not something that will have addressed any of the complaints you heard about,” Jennifer Shaw, deputy director of the ACLU of Washington, told Burgess and the other committee members about three-quarters of the way through the public-comment period. “The officer called out to Westlake didn’t see the panhandler, so they couldn’t have cited” him. “The woman whose husband was assaulted,” Shaw said, “could have been arrested but not cited for aggressive panhandling.”
The city already has a law criminalizing aggressive begging and assault, punishable by arrest and jail. This bill from Burgess would add a new level of civil penalty for aggressive solicitation. A woman named Bridget, a 16-year resident of Belltown, says there is "no evidence" that "poor people are responsible for increased crime."
More after the jump
Two: People on both sides enthusiastically supported the other four points in the city’s five-point plan to increase safety. More foot patrols, which are slated to begin on April 1, are widely popular with even the most staunch critics of Burgess’s civility law. Also widely popular: sticking with a plan—a plan that has long been in the works—to hire more cops. “Burgess sounds puzzled when all the attention on this one element,” the ACLU’s Shaw said. “That is because this one element is a very divisive, very aggressive proposal.”
Three: There was a lot of discussion about pit bulls and gnats. City Council Member Bruce Harrell noted the problems associated with open-air drug markets, gangs, and violence, and, he said, “While I am generally supportive of what we are trying to do here, I get this vision of us swatting at gnats while there is a pit bull gnawing on our leg.” The theme repeated again and again, right to the last person to speak, Anita Freeman, who said, “I want to be safe as a woman, and I don’t want police to be swatting at gnats while a pit bull is chewing on me. If it is already illegal for someone to be threatening and intimidate me, then we don’t need this. If this is really about unwanted behavior, it should be called the anti-intimidation ordinance. Target intimidation, not soliciting.” Niko Simonson, an advocate for Real Change, said the bill was telling people what they should fear—panhandlers—instead of the “pit bull” gnawing at your knee. "You cant’ associate someone panhandling with someone committing a robbery and assault," she said.
Four: The people who showed up to support this bill were almost homogenously representatives of downtown-area business and resident groups—people who had a financial stake in downtown. Strongly represented: The Downtown Seattle Association, the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, Pioneer Square, Denny Triangle, and Belltown association representatives, etc.
A represenative quote: “Citizens of Seattle are shareholders of a company and their value is in downtown,” said Richard Stevenson, speaking on behalf of Clise Properties, which owns a swath of northern downtown.
“As long as we have been around, we have been concerned about aggressive panhandling,’ said George Allen, vice president of government relations of the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, “and have wanted someone to address this very critical issue.”
In contrast, opponents were across the spectrum of city interests, with a strong emphasis on homeless advocates: downtown residents, other neighborhood residents, homeless people, business owners, advocacy organizations, a senior organization, the ACLU, old folks, young folks, and church folks).
A representative quote: “I am concerned the way the law is written is different than way characterized it. You have written it to get rid of anybody you think is aggressive,” said Flo Beaumon, executive director of Catholic Community Services. “Panhandling is an indication of what is wrong with his society. There are some people who are poor. We need public safety against real threat of violence, but people who are poor and panhandling too close to an ATM or parking station, they are not the threat.”
Five: Expect changes to the bill. The Public Safety and Education Committee will be adding several amendments in the coming weeks. It’s unclear what those amendments are, exactly, but they will no doubt attempt to clarify ambiguous language in the bill. “There is one thing I am concerned about,” said City Council Member Sally Bagshaw. She noted members of the ACLU had sent her over 400 emails in the last day, condemning the bill’s ramifications. “I want to make sure we are protecting all of our civil rights. That’s why we have Constitution.”
Bagshaw says she will be introducing amendments to change the ordinance. And Burgess says he plans to add a clause that would require the city to produce an annual report of the measure’s implementation. The Seattle Human rights Commission will discuss the bill on April 1 and maybe take a vote to endorse or oppose it. The council committee will consider voting on the measure on April 7, possibly sending it to the full city council.
Neither Mayor Mike McGinn nor City Attorney Pete Holmes has taken a position on the bill.
1
So nobody gave any reason why it should be OK to panhandle a person who is trying to work an ATM or pay station? Because I still want to know why that should be allowed.
The gnat thing is an interesting point. It's too expensive to arrest, jail, prosecute and punish someone for aggressive panhandling. And we have higher priories. Hence the need for an intermediate tool for the police, short of all the time it takes to arrest them and trying to convict them in court, the cops can just write them a $50 ticket (which the destitute can pay off via community service).
It's precisely because this is a minor offense that we need a minor civil infraction to respond to it while we commit police, jail space and prosecutor resources to more serious things.
The gnat thing is an interesting point. It's too expensive to arrest, jail, prosecute and punish someone for aggressive panhandling. And we have higher priories. Hence the need for an intermediate tool for the police, short of all the time it takes to arrest them and trying to convict them in court, the cops can just write them a $50 ticket (which the destitute can pay off via community service).
It's precisely because this is a minor offense that we need a minor civil infraction to respond to it while we commit police, jail space and prosecutor resources to more serious things.
2
@1:
Because you're an adult and my taxes shouldn't go to coddling pussies who have the interpersonal skills of a half-empty sack of corn meal.
So nobody gave any reason why it should be OK to panhandle a person who is trying to work an ATM or pay station? Because I still want to know why that should be allowed.
Because you're an adult and my taxes shouldn't go to coddling pussies who have the interpersonal skills of a half-empty sack of corn meal.
4
You mean like signs pointing toward Pike Place Market? Or community service people cleaning up garbage on the streets downtown? Or microphones for bus drivers to tell passengers where they are?
my taxes shouldn't go to coddling pussies who have the interpersonal skills of a half-empty sack of corn meal.
You mean like signs pointing toward Pike Place Market? Or community service people cleaning up garbage on the streets downtown? Or microphones for bus drivers to tell passengers where they are?
7
"A woman named Bridget, a 16-year resident of Belltown, says there is "no evidence" that "poor people are responsible for increased crime." "
That's not true at all. If you're poor, like, you have nothing, and your only option is to steal, you damn right they're going to steal to survive. There is direct evidence that shows people with less/nothing commit more crime than those with more/what they need, but it's certainly beside the point. I think the woman who asked what this bill could have done to help her husband was right on the money. Get these people HELP, call someone to get this person the HELP they need. It's way cheaper than calling the cops and putting him in a prison cell because he's asking for money. I don't know what to do if they don't want help, but I'm not sure we offer these people the help they need, and that's a way that businesses can identify "problems" and the city should offer help. We don't need to wait till the situation gets out of hand.
That's not true at all. If you're poor, like, you have nothing, and your only option is to steal, you damn right they're going to steal to survive. There is direct evidence that shows people with less/nothing commit more crime than those with more/what they need, but it's certainly beside the point. I think the woman who asked what this bill could have done to help her husband was right on the money. Get these people HELP, call someone to get this person the HELP they need. It's way cheaper than calling the cops and putting him in a prison cell because he's asking for money. I don't know what to do if they don't want help, but I'm not sure we offer these people the help they need, and that's a way that businesses can identify "problems" and the city should offer help. We don't need to wait till the situation gets out of hand.
8
@5
Actually, my point was that you could've argued your point without coming off as a complete dick.
I just found it a little bit ironic that you would chose this route while arguing about a law on "civility."
Actually, my point was that you could've argued your point without coming off as a complete dick.
I just found it a little bit ironic that you would chose this route while arguing about a law on "civility."
9
@8: No, my comment was not ironic; it was direct, but not ironic.
Yours, however, was incredibly ironic.
Yours, however, was incredibly ironic.
11
The "civility" bill is just an excuse for the Nanny State Tea Baggers trying to run our lives.
It's what they do.
Why? Because voting citizens don't matter - just "stakeholders".
It's what they do.
Why? Because voting citizens don't matter - just "stakeholders".
12
@7,
Anyone who's been on the street for any length of time knows perfectly well where to get help.
Anyone who's been on the street for any length of time knows perfectly well where to get help.
13
I appreciate the hysterics of people who oppose Burgess's proposal. The reason they resort to personal attacks is that they can't think of a simple rational reason why it's a bad idea to write a $50 ticket to someone for soliciting while you're trying to work a machine like an ATM. And of course they have no proposals of their own, either to improve anyone's safety or help the homeless.
So instead all they do is fling insults. So keep it up, kids. You are proving me right.
So instead all they do is fling insults. So keep it up, kids. You are proving me right.
15
elenchos baby: here's why it's a dumb idea, ok?
1. it pushes your buttons on pit bulls -- no wait --
1. you can remedy people asking you for money at ATMs by opening your mouth and saying "no." If you want to express even more rights, say "hell no."
This whole thing arises from Seattle passivity. "Thomas Ditty, general manager of the monorail, favors the bill because a person on the monorail platform was “asking each person for change … we asked him to leave and then he left.” RIGHT -- HE LEFT. Because panhandlers who get told no, "go away" or "I won't give you any money, please go away" will do so. Try to confront your passive agressive need for someone else (the state, cops, etc. ) to take your place; just say no, if you don't want to give.
2. a fine doesn't work on peopel with no money.
3. are you aware we have like 30,000 outstanding warrants right now for real criminals already convicted who didn't appear for post sentence monitoring or paying big fines for assult and stuff like that?
3. if you want to convict people of infractions it takes cop time judge time etc. It just doesn't work. Some things, even if they are wrong? And even if they "should be" illegal? The machinery of law enforcement just doesn't work anyway.
4. it's a politican pandering to appease idiots.
5. it's too vague for us who treasure people speaking to like it.
6. just bring your pit bull, no one will bother you.
1. it pushes your buttons on pit bulls -- no wait --
1. you can remedy people asking you for money at ATMs by opening your mouth and saying "no." If you want to express even more rights, say "hell no."
This whole thing arises from Seattle passivity. "Thomas Ditty, general manager of the monorail, favors the bill because a person on the monorail platform was “asking each person for change … we asked him to leave and then he left.” RIGHT -- HE LEFT. Because panhandlers who get told no, "go away" or "I won't give you any money, please go away" will do so. Try to confront your passive agressive need for someone else (the state, cops, etc. ) to take your place; just say no, if you don't want to give.
2. a fine doesn't work on peopel with no money.
3. are you aware we have like 30,000 outstanding warrants right now for real criminals already convicted who didn't appear for post sentence monitoring or paying big fines for assult and stuff like that?
3. if you want to convict people of infractions it takes cop time judge time etc. It just doesn't work. Some things, even if they are wrong? And even if they "should be" illegal? The machinery of law enforcement just doesn't work anyway.
4. it's a politican pandering to appease idiots.
5. it's too vague for us who treasure people speaking to like it.
6. just bring your pit bull, no one will bother you.
16
So says the able-bodied male under the age of sixty with no kids and a ton of experience downtown.
you can remedy people asking you for money at ATMs by opening your mouth and saying "no." If you want to express even more rights, say "hell no."
So says the able-bodied male under the age of sixty with no kids and a ton of experience downtown.
17
@13: The problem, elenchos, is that you're utterly convinced that a $50 fine will magically make this problem go away. You're also deluded into thinking the problem lies in the panhandler and not the supposed "victim".
Anyone who has resorted to panhandling will not pay a fine, nor will they submit willingly to public service of some sort. The costs associated with enforcing or codifying this type of ordinance produce no ROI nor will they change conduct.
Moreover, anyone with common sense would quickly be able to determine that the cost to the city in manpower, legal fees and enforcement would prove to be a drain on city finances.
This ordinance also emboldens certain interests with the basic idea that the city views certain groups that would panhandle as expendable and a target for enforcement of various sorts. In other cities, you've seen nuisance ordinances balloon into things like sit-lie ordinances.
Finally, a law like this is crying for a financially draining legal battle over a variety of constitutional rights such as freedom of speech.
Examples provided by proponents are not within the scope of anything that could possibly justify an ordinance like this and could easily create situations that constitute harassment of individuals that, say, ask the wrong person for a fiver too close to an ATM.
Annoyance is not grounds for an ordinance, a fine, or dragging the city into a legal quagmire. For menacing, we already have a battery of laws.
Anyone who has resorted to panhandling will not pay a fine, nor will they submit willingly to public service of some sort. The costs associated with enforcing or codifying this type of ordinance produce no ROI nor will they change conduct.
Moreover, anyone with common sense would quickly be able to determine that the cost to the city in manpower, legal fees and enforcement would prove to be a drain on city finances.
This ordinance also emboldens certain interests with the basic idea that the city views certain groups that would panhandle as expendable and a target for enforcement of various sorts. In other cities, you've seen nuisance ordinances balloon into things like sit-lie ordinances.
Finally, a law like this is crying for a financially draining legal battle over a variety of constitutional rights such as freedom of speech.
Examples provided by proponents are not within the scope of anything that could possibly justify an ordinance like this and could easily create situations that constitute harassment of individuals that, say, ask the wrong person for a fiver too close to an ATM.
Annoyance is not grounds for an ordinance, a fine, or dragging the city into a legal quagmire. For menacing, we already have a battery of laws.
18
Oh, and since Burgess' law includes a sit-lie clause, he may want to talk to Portland about it-- theirs didn't end so well and ended up costing the city a LOT of money and ended up getting some folks in really hot water: http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/…
http://www.aclu-or.org/content/portland%…
http://www.google.com/search?q=portland+…
http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blog…
It makes me wonder-- if proponents of this ordinance are at this stage, what is their actual commitment to fixing the problem? The gauge seems to be hovering at around zero.
http://www.aclu-or.org/content/portland%…
http://www.google.com/search?q=portland+…
http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blog…
It makes me wonder-- if proponents of this ordinance are at this stage, what is their actual commitment to fixing the problem? The gauge seems to be hovering at around zero.
19
Well, if it doesn't work, then no harm done. Prosecutors and cops are obviously not going to spend hours and hours chasing down vagrants who didn't pay their $50 or show up for community service. I think it will influence the behavior of some of our hobo population, but if it doesn't change how they act in any way, then that's too bad. We can try something else.
As to whether or not the ACLU decides to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court, or whether or not the city attorney chooses to fight said battle or simply cry uncle, that is a separate decision. An ordinance like this in no way commits the city to carrying on a protracted, expensive court battle.
My wager is the ACLU is bluffing and would not waste their time on small bore chickenshit like this. We can cross that bridge when we come to it.
As to whether or not the ACLU decides to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court, or whether or not the city attorney chooses to fight said battle or simply cry uncle, that is a separate decision. An ordinance like this in no way commits the city to carrying on a protracted, expensive court battle.
My wager is the ACLU is bluffing and would not waste their time on small bore chickenshit like this. We can cross that bridge when we come to it.
20
I think "if it doesn't work, then no harm done" can't be true, though. We elect Council members to make laws as useful as they can, as free from empty posturing as possible. With a mayor ready to swoop in on any issue he can, especially with all eyes on Burgess as the most likely challenger to McGinn next election, the Council needs to guard its credibility, and be clear it is not run by Burgess's every whim.
As for the ACLU, they've spent a lot of time on this already, having scrambled to assemble a terrific report that helped push Burgess into adding foot patrols to the newly hatched version of his bill. Because they care both public safety AND steering eager legislators clear of civil rights trouble.
FWIW, my own wager is that Burgess, no dummy, is getting tired of defending the panhandlers-b-gone part of his legislation. The hearing gave him a chance to see that most of the people super-excited about it are the same crew McGinn squeaked into office by flouting. He just needs a face-saving out at this point.
As for the ACLU, they've spent a lot of time on this already, having scrambled to assemble a terrific report that helped push Burgess into adding foot patrols to the newly hatched version of his bill. Because they care both public safety AND steering eager legislators clear of civil rights trouble.
FWIW, my own wager is that Burgess, no dummy, is getting tired of defending the panhandlers-b-gone part of his legislation. The hearing gave him a chance to see that most of the people super-excited about it are the same crew McGinn squeaked into office by flouting. He just needs a face-saving out at this point.
21
I think we should ticket the panhandlers based on how pathetically unbelievable their come on is. "My mother's in the hospital and I need 65 cents for the bus to go get her." That would be an easy $100 fine for the assault on my intelligence and the waste of minutes of my life.
22
Excellent summary. By my quick count, supporters of the proposal outnumbered opponents 31-30. The desires of power were made perfectly clear.
http://www.realchangenews.org/index.php/…
http://www.realchangenews.org/index.php/…
23
Most of the proposal's supporters couldn't be there because they all have jobs.
To earn money to have deposited in their bank accounts so they can stand there at the ATM passing out cash to the crazies and addicts. The whole beautiful system would come crashing down if the took time off work to hang around city council chambers.
To earn money to have deposited in their bank accounts so they can stand there at the ATM passing out cash to the crazies and addicts. The whole beautiful system would come crashing down if the took time off work to hang around city council chambers.
24
Baconcat,
Well said.
Elenchos,
The ACLU of WA picks its battles very carefully indeed, and doesn't take up causes it isn't willing to go to the mat for. They understand that initiatives that you glibly (and ignorantly) characterize as "small bore chickenshit" are designed to lead to bigger and worse things, and understand the value of fighting that process every step of the way - which is why I've been giving them money since the first Bush Administration.
Gloomy,
I wish I agreed - but I think Burgess knows the law well enough to know that his initial proposal was a Constitutional non starter, but he's been fighting to get/keep the City/camel's nose under this tent any way he can because it's important to him to be the one who sets this precedent.
Which is not good.
Well said.
Elenchos,
The ACLU of WA picks its battles very carefully indeed, and doesn't take up causes it isn't willing to go to the mat for. They understand that initiatives that you glibly (and ignorantly) characterize as "small bore chickenshit" are designed to lead to bigger and worse things, and understand the value of fighting that process every step of the way - which is why I've been giving them money since the first Bush Administration.
Gloomy,
I wish I agreed - but I think Burgess knows the law well enough to know that his initial proposal was a Constitutional non starter, but he's been fighting to get/keep the City/camel's nose under this tent any way he can because it's important to him to be the one who sets this precedent.
Which is not good.
25
Elenchos,
Congratulations on a post @23 that is completely indistinguishable from one I would expect from some Teabagger posting from Mt. Vernon on the PI Sound Off.
I hope you're proud. Could you mention stinky hippies and welfare mothers, too?
Congratulations on a post @23 that is completely indistinguishable from one I would expect from some Teabagger posting from Mt. Vernon on the PI Sound Off.
I hope you're proud. Could you mention stinky hippies and welfare mothers, too?
26
Tim, you have to register to post links, even to your own stuff! Here's the one I suspect you were aiming at (nice visual):
http://www.realchangenews.org/index.php/…
Mr. X, I hope you're wrong about Burgess - but I fear you're right.
http://www.realchangenews.org/index.php/…
Mr. X, I hope you're wrong about Burgess - but I fear you're right.
27
@23 If all Burgess is interested in is making folks feel comfortable at an ATM, he would have worded this ordinance differently by quite clearly targeting behavior (e.g., a civil infraction to approach any person for any reason while they are using an ATM). But, despite what you think -- and want him to be doing -- that's not his goal and that's why he keeps trying to tweak the language.
He's also being reckless with public resources.
When told that there will certainly be a legal challenge to this if it passes he quite cavalierly said that's what the city attorney's budget is for. He knows there will be a challenge that will cost the city money and goes forward anyway. There really are a lot more important things he could devote his energy to.
And I'm with Mr X, I'm betting the $25 a month that I've given to the ACLU since 1988 that they will continue to follow this quite closely and will pounce the second they see a constitutional violation.
He's also being reckless with public resources.
When told that there will certainly be a legal challenge to this if it passes he quite cavalierly said that's what the city attorney's budget is for. He knows there will be a challenge that will cost the city money and goes forward anyway. There really are a lot more important things he could devote his energy to.
And I'm with Mr X, I'm betting the $25 a month that I've given to the ACLU since 1988 that they will continue to follow this quite closely and will pounce the second they see a constitutional violation.
28
Well jeez... we ought to be reforming the law to prevent that!
“The woman whose husband was assaulted,” Shaw said, “could have been arrested but not cited for aggressive panhandling.”
Well jeez... we ought to be reforming the law to prevent that!
29
How does it feel to have the ACLU shoving their nose into your business and telling you how to run your city?
Shame on you, evil, stupid, backward, bigoted Seattle....
Shame on you, evil, stupid, backward, bigoted Seattle....
31
@27:
So first he proposes retaining a private lawyer for the City Council because he fears Pete Holmes won't do what they say, then he basically proposes fucking over someone elected in a landslide with legal wrangling?
Mmm, sounds like Burgess is looking for a new job. When's he up for unelection?
When told that there will certainly be a legal challenge to this if it passes he quite cavalierly said that's what the city attorney's budget is for.
So first he proposes retaining a private lawyer for the City Council because he fears Pete Holmes won't do what they say, then he basically proposes fucking over someone elected in a landslide with legal wrangling?
Mmm, sounds like Burgess is looking for a new job. When's he up for unelection?
32
The real problem in Seattle is not panhandling bums. The real problem in Seattle is VIOLENT BLACK THUGS. VIOLENT BLACK THUGS committed OVER HALF OF THE MURDERS IN SEATTLE in 2008 and 2009! It is an indisputable fact, don't make yourself look stupid by disputing it because it is very easily proved. A careful and informed reading of the Seattle PI's annual homicide articles proves that over half of all killings in Seattle are committed by blacks, even though blacks make up only eight percent of Seattle.
33
@32: God forbid someone make themselves look stupid.
I mean, it would be a shame if someone went all hysterical about crime rates in a city that has the third lowest murder rate in the country for cities over 500,000 in population. It'd be an even bigger shame if they completely ignored freshman year sociology lessons in victim cycles and insular crime.
I mean, it would be a shame if someone went all hysterical about crime rates in a city that has the third lowest murder rate in the country for cities over 500,000 in population. It'd be an even bigger shame if they completely ignored freshman year sociology lessons in victim cycles and insular crime.
35
@33 - I know, let's lock up all old white people, cause they might be terrorists. And those canes sure look scary ...
36
"I mean, it would be a shame if someone went all hysterical about crime rates in a city that has the third lowest murder rate in the country for cities over 500,000 in population.". = we shouldn't care about the murder rate in Seattle cuz it is not as bad as Detroit! That is just STUPID "LOGIC" baconcat,and if you were half as smart as you pretend to be you would recognize that fact. The rest of the illogical bullshit about first year sociology and victims is exactly the kind of useless impotent white progressive reality-ignoring horseshit that allows the VIOLENT BLACK THUG problem in Seattle to continue to fester.
39
@ 38: you don't get to shut down a discussion of indisputable Seattle crime facts with your lame non-argument. Also I have no need to say that word, I hear it hundreds of times a day from all the black thugs downtown. Like it or not, the FACTS are that black males make up less than four percent of Seattle but commit over half the murders here every year, and they also commit the vast majority of violent assults and rapes. Waaaahwaaahwaaaah all you want about the facts of reality but your little nword crack is as impotent as all your other white seattle progressive wimp ideas.
40
@36: Actually, where I went to school, the crime rate was leagues higher than it is in Seattle and the state has just stated that all textbooks should take a strong conservative slant. The only liberals in my school were the gay club and the 5-member feminist empowerment group, and they had no banners or bulletin boards on campus because they were often defaced with the same spraypainted cross and "JESUS SAVES".
Weeping online about the SKARY BLAX PPLZ makes you look like an even bigger pussy than the supposed weak liberal progressives you're flogging with your mindless fearmongering. More than that, statistics are meaningless if you don't understand what you're looking at. Shutting down a conversation by saying "THIS EXISTS AS A STATISTIC THEREFORE YOUR VIEWPOINT IS IRRELEVANT" proves that you have no interest in any details surrounding said statistic and are more than likely clueless about what you're citing beyond the represented group.
I could just as easily say we should ban all heterosexual conduct because it leads to a 100% mortality rate and be just as coherent and relevant as you believe you are. Then again, I could also say we have 0 proof that unicorns don't exist and therefore they do, but unicorns are totally homo.
Weeping online about the SKARY BLAX PPLZ makes you look like an even bigger pussy than the supposed weak liberal progressives you're flogging with your mindless fearmongering. More than that, statistics are meaningless if you don't understand what you're looking at. Shutting down a conversation by saying "THIS EXISTS AS A STATISTIC THEREFORE YOUR VIEWPOINT IS IRRELEVANT" proves that you have no interest in any details surrounding said statistic and are more than likely clueless about what you're citing beyond the represented group.
I could just as easily say we should ban all heterosexual conduct because it leads to a 100% mortality rate and be just as coherent and relevant as you believe you are. Then again, I could also say we have 0 proof that unicorns don't exist and therefore they do, but unicorns are totally homo.
41
"Weeping online about the SKARY BLAX PPLZ makes you look like an even bigger pussy than the supposed weak liberal progressives you're flogging with your mindless fearmongering. More than that, statistics are meaningless if you don't understand what you're looking at. Shutting down a conversation by saying "THIS EXISTS AS A STATISTIC THEREFORE YOUR VIEWPOINT IS IRRELEVANT" proves that you have no interest in any details surrounding said statistic and are more than likely clueless about what you're citing beyond the represented group.". ------ making lame LOLCATS style cracks like SKARY BLAX PPLZ does not make the facts of reality go away, and the facts are that there really are a lot of scary blacks who commit the vast majority of violent crimes in Seattle. Your snarky horseshit is useless when confronting reality. As far as "understanding" goes, I absolutely do not care why there are so many stupid violent blacks. I don't care if it is because of genetics or because of oppression. The fact remains that there are tons of stupid violent blacks, and understanding will not make them any less stupid or violent, and they would kill your white Seattle progressive ass given half a chance. That is reality, that is the major civility problem in Seattle, not begging bums, and I don't give a flying fuck if you are offended by a plain statement of indisputable facts.
42
"Weeping online about the SKARY BLAX PPLZ makes you look like an even bigger pussy than the supposed weak liberal progressives you're flogging with your mindless fearmongering. More than that, statistics are meaningless if you don't understand what you're looking at. Shutting down a conversation by saying "THIS EXISTS AS A STATISTIC THEREFORE YOUR VIEWPOINT IS IRRELEVANT" proves that you have no interest in any details surrounding said statistic and are more than likely clueless about what you're citing beyond the represented group.". ------ making lame LOLCATS style cracks like SKARY BLAX PPLZ does not make the facts of reality go away, and the facts are that there really are a lot of scary blacks who commit the vast majority of violent crimes in Seattle. Your snarky horseshit is useless when confronting reality. As far as "understanding" goes, I absolutely do not care why there are so many stupid violent blacks. I don't care if it is because of genetics or because of oppression. The fact remains that there are tons of stupid violent blacks, and understanding will not make them any less stupid or violent, and they would kill your white Seattle progressive ass given half a chance. That is reality, that is the major civility problem in Seattle, not begging bums, and I don't give a flying fuck if you are offended by a plain statement of indisputable facts.
43
39
You think that's scary? Homosexual men make up less than TWO percent of America but give each other FIFTY NINE PERCENT of ALL new AIDS cases in America every year, and they also spread other STDs by similarly disproportionate amounts.
You think that's scary? Homosexual men make up less than TWO percent of America but give each other FIFTY NINE PERCENT of ALL new AIDS cases in America every year, and they also spread other STDs by similarly disproportionate amounts.
44
@41/42: See, I figured you had no clue what you were talking about. I mention victims and you go on some rattle about how IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE IF THEY HAD A CHANCE THEY'D KILL YOUR WHITE PROGRESSIVE ASS. Clearly, were you correct in any sense, I'd have: a) been dead years ago; b) ticked off "white" on my census form. It goes back to the root of what you're saying: irrational fear. You have absolutely no desire to back up your fear, so you fish for UNASSAILABLE TRUTH to buttress your wrongheaded idea that you'll be raped, shot and set on fire if you shake hands with a black person. Fear is frequently stupidity expressed via emotion. Stupidity also breeds gross assumptions in lieu of actual academically sound considerations.
@43: And again we go back to basic statistics and how the fact that statistics give less than half the story makes them practically useless in the hands of anyone without a lick of sense. If statistics justify anything and death is cause for prohibitions, exclusions or sanctions, heterosexual activity should be strictly forbidden. My statistic clearly trumps yours because, although STIs and disorders cause death, mortality would not be a factor without birth, something that is the physical product of sperm and egg.
This is fun, keep going you guys, you're sounding like Howard Hughes, all slathered-up with Purell(tm) and your own agoraphobic sweat.
@43: And again we go back to basic statistics and how the fact that statistics give less than half the story makes them practically useless in the hands of anyone without a lick of sense. If statistics justify anything and death is cause for prohibitions, exclusions or sanctions, heterosexual activity should be strictly forbidden. My statistic clearly trumps yours because, although STIs and disorders cause death, mortality would not be a factor without birth, something that is the physical product of sperm and egg.
This is fun, keep going you guys, you're sounding like Howard Hughes, all slathered-up with Purell(tm) and your own agoraphobic sweat.
46
I am shocked that an area of the city which has seen more than a doubling of its population (downtown), and has many condos from non-citizen millionaires (you should check out the ones closest to the Port), might see an increase in total cases of violence/panhandling/murder.
Because, it's only the per capita rate that matters.
There's a reason why Washington is going to get another member of Congress - we have MORE people now.
Because, it's only the per capita rate that matters.
There's a reason why Washington is going to get another member of Congress - we have MORE people now.
47
Baconcat - blah blah blah lame and false comparison of indisputable Seattle crime FACTS (not stats!!!!) with shaking hands with black people blah bla blah sperm blah blah all life ends in death therefore the fact that the major civility problems in Seattle are committed by BLACK THUGS and not by begging bums does not matter blah blah blah white progressive liberal black-studies emotional horseshit blah blah blah. Sorry baconcat but all your horseshit does nothing to make the facts about Seattle crime go away. I don't care how many time you call me a teabagger or a kkk racist, the facts remain thatthe VAST MAJORITY of RAPES and MURDERS in Seattle are commuted by BLACK THUGS and NOT BY BEGGING BUMS! Big fucking DUUUUUUUUUUH!!!!!!
48
Facts - NOT STATS!!!: At least 14 of the 28 killings in Seattle in 2008 were committed by blacks. At least twelve of the 21 killings in Seattle in 2000 were committed by blacks. Therefore blacks commit over half the murders in Seattle, even though blacks make up only a tiny portion of seattle's population.
49
the above should read : At least twelve of the 21 killings in Seattle in 2009 were committed by blacks. It is hard to type on a phone.
50
I can see this has descended into bickering over nothing. Wake me if anybody posts, you know, like information or anything.
51
@47: "Fact" implies you believe these are unchangeable statistics, so it further confirms that your only horse in this race is some frantic belief that OH MY GOD THE BLACK PEOPLE ARE GOING TO KILL YOU. Do you have a reason for this fear?
Let's correct your statistics:
1) First of all, you've cut the black population to nearly half of what it actually is.
2) Secondly, with 22 murders in 2009, even if all were committed by black people, that's only a fraction of the black population of over 72,000 in the city. <0.002% of black people in the city of Seattle are murderers or potential murders by that metric.
3) Finally, with a majority of crimes happening within peer groups, it's hard to imagine you would even have to worry.
Your own conduct is questionable if you're in a position that you're completely freaked out by the idea of BLACK THUGS DESTROYING SEATTLE'S CIVILITY. You seem a bit paranoid.
Let's correct your statistics:
1) First of all, you've cut the black population to nearly half of what it actually is.
2) Secondly, with 22 murders in 2009, even if all were committed by black people, that's only a fraction of the black population of over 72,000 in the city. <0.002% of black people in the city of Seattle are murderers or potential murders by that metric.
3) Finally, with a majority of crimes happening within peer groups, it's hard to imagine you would even have to worry.
Your own conduct is questionable if you're in a position that you're completely freaked out by the idea of BLACK THUGS DESTROYING SEATTLE'S CIVILITY. You seem a bit paranoid.
53
You mean indisputable factual information about the real source of the vast majority of Seattle's civility problem??? BIG HINT: it is not begging bums.
54
Baconcat, you've handily said damn near everything I wanted to. Well done.
It's clear how few here completed a SOC 101 course, much less were even qualified enough to be allow to enrol in one.
To you wise people of Moronia with whom Baconcat's going tête-à-téte (and holding his own very well, thank you): go look up the concept of "life chances". In the meantime, go play with yourselves. You'll get more enjoyment that way.
It's clear how few here completed a SOC 101 course, much less were even qualified enough to be allow to enrol in one.
To you wise people of Moronia with whom Baconcat's going tête-à-téte (and holding his own very well, thank you): go look up the concept of "life chances". In the meantime, go play with yourselves. You'll get more enjoyment that way.
55
1) First of all, you've cut the black population to nearly half of what it actually is. WRONG. Blacks make up 8% of Seattle. Therefore crime-age black males make up less than 4% of Seattle.... That is called LOGIC. "3) Finally, with a majority of crimes happening within peer groups, it's hard to imagine you would even have to worry.". Yeah I should not give a shit about people I don't know.... That is the "Seattle way" after all.
56
@53: I love that you say "WHITE-GUILT LIBS" and basically wallow in a pit of white fear. Oh, god forbid that you can't PROVE that it's the black people with your statistics, these statistics still exist! We can extrapolate out that black people are killing black people and therefore, white people are next! AHHHH! They're out to get you! Oh my god, and because they're out to get you, they make you rude! And our own civility problems are TOTALLY the fault of some other group that you can't even correctly quantify.
When you say "factual", next time you might want to get actual crime stats correct (hint: your cited murder statistics are wrong). When you say "factual", you might want to use the correct percentage of any given group in a city. When you say "factual", you might want to use actual facts and not some fearmongering parading around as TRUFAX.
See, this is the problem with this law, in general. It's some kind of feel-good do-nothing toothless gesture that solves no problems, costs money, and at the end of the day will just be a dusty ordinance sitting on some shelf in City Hall doing more for balancing a shelf than it does to assuage fears or foster greater civility in the city. Fauxgressives will bandy this law about just as eagerly as they'll blame larger society's problems on whatever scapegoat du jour they can find, be it black people, teenagers, immigrants or those filthy papists living with their brood cow and 50 children -- all for the good of the community, of course!
It saves energy that would otherwise be devoted to action or thought.
When you say "factual", next time you might want to get actual crime stats correct (hint: your cited murder statistics are wrong). When you say "factual", you might want to use the correct percentage of any given group in a city. When you say "factual", you might want to use actual facts and not some fearmongering parading around as TRUFAX.
See, this is the problem with this law, in general. It's some kind of feel-good do-nothing toothless gesture that solves no problems, costs money, and at the end of the day will just be a dusty ordinance sitting on some shelf in City Hall doing more for balancing a shelf than it does to assuage fears or foster greater civility in the city. Fauxgressives will bandy this law about just as eagerly as they'll blame larger society's problems on whatever scapegoat du jour they can find, be it black people, teenagers, immigrants or those filthy papists living with their brood cow and 50 children -- all for the good of the community, of course!
It saves energy that would otherwise be devoted to action or thought.
57
Also, to you Burgess supporters of Moronia, don't make me get all Jane Jacobs on your cute, little nasturtium arses.
Also, statistics aren't facts. They're statistics. They are recorded, quantified placeholders that freeze a moment for observation. They are, on their own, meaningless without context and meaningless without qualitative fact to explain them.
You want facts? Dig deeper. Find the root causes, not hapless correlations. Otherwise, wank until your knob falls off. Then keep wanking. You'll get so much more from this.
Also, statistics aren't facts. They're statistics. They are recorded, quantified placeholders that freeze a moment for observation. They are, on their own, meaningless without context and meaningless without qualitative fact to explain them.
You want facts? Dig deeper. Find the root causes, not hapless correlations. Otherwise, wank until your knob falls off. Then keep wanking. You'll get so much more from this.
58
If there were enough foot patrols, all downtown would need to curb most of the aggressive panhandling is a cop yelling "cut it out! move on!". If that doesn't work, the incident probably rises to the level where an arrest under current laws is merited.
The $50 ticket won't save any money. Wasting cops time writing out tickets when a stern warning would be enough. Then jailing panhandlers who can't pay the fine and won't do the community service. Ever been to municipal court? Half the people with misdemeanor tickets take the jail time and another mark on their record instead of community service or paying the fine.
The $50 ticket won't save any money. Wasting cops time writing out tickets when a stern warning would be enough. Then jailing panhandlers who can't pay the fine and won't do the community service. Ever been to municipal court? Half the people with misdemeanor tickets take the jail time and another mark on their record instead of community service or paying the fine.
59
Let me get this right:
Assault, harassment, and trespassing are already illegal. Violation of those laws results in jail time and prosecution.
BUT, we still have this problem with assault, harassment, and trespassing happening.
How will a $50 fine for lesser infraction PREVENT those crimes from being committed?
How much money is the city willing to spend tracking down $50 or equivalent community service from people? If one doesn't pay the fine, what is the consequence? Sounds like we're creating another empty city bank account waiting for people who elect to pay their fines (like people who elect to pay their city parking tickets), with no repercussion for those who choose not to pay.
Seriously, how will the city track down a homeless person and force them to pay a fine or show up somewhere without spending more than $50 to accomplish that? I must have missed the part where our city became fiscally efficient.
Assault, harassment, and trespassing are already illegal. Violation of those laws results in jail time and prosecution.
BUT, we still have this problem with assault, harassment, and trespassing happening.
How will a $50 fine for lesser infraction PREVENT those crimes from being committed?
How much money is the city willing to spend tracking down $50 or equivalent community service from people? If one doesn't pay the fine, what is the consequence? Sounds like we're creating another empty city bank account waiting for people who elect to pay their fines (like people who elect to pay their city parking tickets), with no repercussion for those who choose not to pay.
Seriously, how will the city track down a homeless person and force them to pay a fine or show up somewhere without spending more than $50 to accomplish that? I must have missed the part where our city became fiscally efficient.
60
"Also, statistics aren't facts. They're statistics". ---- you are obviously confusing facts with stats. Stat: blacks make up about 13% of the USA but commit at least 52% of the murders and 34% of the forcible rapes in the USA every year. FACTS: At least 14 of the 28 murders in Seattle in 2008 were committed by blacks. At least twelve of the 21 killings in Seattle in 2009 were committed by blacks.
SEE THE DIFFERENCE? OR ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID???
SEE THE DIFFERENCE? OR ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID???
61
51
Let's run this crap through the
Liberal Bullshit Filter and get a translation:
"As long as Blacks are killing each other White Seattle Liberals don't give a shit how many they kill...."
Let's run this crap through the
Liberal Bullshit Filter and get a translation:
"As long as Blacks are killing each other White Seattle Liberals don't give a shit how many they kill...."
62
actually if blacks are 8% of the population then about 4% will be black males but if you also slice it by age and eliminate children and old folks only about 2% of your population are committing over half of the murders...
63
@61
Need Proof?
Remember Teresa Butz?
Of course you do.
Slog had 42 separate posts about the murder of Teresa Butz- how could you not remember.
Forty Two.
Why so many?
A White Homosexual Female murdered by a Black Male-
Slog's Very Liberal and Enlightened ears sure perked up at that.....
Quick- name one BLACK murdered in Seattle the same year as Teresa Butz.
OK, pop quizzes are no fair- let's make it a take home open Slog quiz.
You can take as long as you like and read Slog from start to finish. Just name one of the 9 Blacks murdered in Seattle the same year as Teresa Butz...
OK, still not fair.
Because you will not find one post about a murdered Seattle Black on Slog.
Because Liberal Seattle Whites don't give a shit how many Blacks are murdered.
Because Liberal Seattle Whites don't give a shit how many people Blacks murder as long as they are not White Seattle Liberals.
Need Proof?
Remember Teresa Butz?
Of course you do.
Slog had 42 separate posts about the murder of Teresa Butz- how could you not remember.
Forty Two.
Why so many?
A White Homosexual Female murdered by a Black Male-
Slog's Very Liberal and Enlightened ears sure perked up at that.....
Quick- name one BLACK murdered in Seattle the same year as Teresa Butz.
OK, pop quizzes are no fair- let's make it a take home open Slog quiz.
You can take as long as you like and read Slog from start to finish. Just name one of the 9 Blacks murdered in Seattle the same year as Teresa Butz...
OK, still not fair.
Because you will not find one post about a murdered Seattle Black on Slog.
Because Liberal Seattle Whites don't give a shit how many Blacks are murdered.
Because Liberal Seattle Whites don't give a shit how many people Blacks murder as long as they are not White Seattle Liberals.
65
@60: So tell me, Einstein: is that correlational or causal? Please. Tell us.
Your "FACTS", as you blurted, are statistics. Statistics are not "facts". Statistics are quantitative (that means counting, btw) markers in time (or some other index). Statistics are not qualitative — that means "a description of qualities" — in value. It's the qualitative work you need to do in order to figure out the causes behind wtf's going on. I have a fairly good idea, but that's not really germane to this discussion.
Someone should point Burgess's issue supporters to the failure of a similar anti-panhandling law: the Ontario Safe Streets Act of 1999. Also, I need coffee. You anonymous cowards are making me cranky and a little bored.
(And to think that I don't even live in Seattle any longer, much less the same country.)
Your "FACTS", as you blurted, are statistics. Statistics are not "facts". Statistics are quantitative (that means counting, btw) markers in time (or some other index). Statistics are not qualitative — that means "a description of qualities" — in value. It's the qualitative work you need to do in order to figure out the causes behind wtf's going on. I have a fairly good idea, but that's not really germane to this discussion.
Someone should point Burgess's issue supporters to the failure of a similar anti-panhandling law: the Ontario Safe Streets Act of 1999. Also, I need coffee. You anonymous cowards are making me cranky and a little bored.
(And to think that I don't even live in Seattle any longer, much less the same country.)
66
With @60, you completely reinforce where this is all coming from and further the fact that you're completely divorced from any kind of reality. With @61, you reveal that it's not about society at large, it's completely about you. What am I, Baconcat, going to do to make you feel better. Essentially, you're tainting the nonversation by putting responsibility for your own well-being squarely on others. Black people, to you, are a problem, and so are "white liberals". Essentially, nothing is the fault of your actions, beliefs, lifestyle choices or decisions.
Your faked concern for black people is completely trumped by your choice of words, belligerent attitude to the concept of basic humanity and ANGRY ANGRY bleating that, my god, we have a problem, so do something-I-haven't-explained-but-surely-you-have-an-idea-if-only-you-agreed-with-me.
It seems your solution to society's greater ills is to force your opinion on everyone else, that being that black people are the cause of all problems. Clearly, if everyone shared your opinion, the problem would solve itself because then everyone would be behind whatever as-yet selected decisive action you're angling for. In fact, nothing you've said has indicated your own personal stake aside from what OTHERS do to YOU.
At its most fundamental level, a law like Burgess' essentially furthers a useless socially backward meme that one group is the root cause of one of society's ills. In this case, it's the panhandlers that are destroying civility in this city. We target them and say "no, you are not wanted" and hope they magically vanish.
Of course, they won't. You can scan the bible for "beggar" and find numerous stories about them, and that's a work of fiction from 2,000 years ago with further stories from 3,000 years ago. Moreover, you also find that a majority of crime that's uniform to any specific culture or ethnicity is the result of society at large, not just that sole group. In the 1800s it was the irish-americans that were basically shoved down by society into squalid conditions like shaky tenements built on the Collect Pond and mistreated, and as such, became the most violent group in America at the time. The advent of Tammany Hall showed that it was political helplessness, social prejudices and poverty perpetuated on a society-wide basis that bred this crime. And yet, Tammany required assistance from more benevolent political factions to grow into what it was, factions that didn't share their relative social disadvantages. Larger society followed, and while Tammany Hall proved to be easily corrupted, its zenith was not the product of simply some inbred fault of Irish-Americans (indeed, Boss Tweed was raised by the Scottish side of his family and only fell in with the Irish-Americans and Tammany in his late teens and early 20s). You can shirk responsibility as a member of society-at-large by pointing to a post-racial america (a favorite tactic) or by claiming some kind of genetic weakness in others (controversial, but it's usually what it comes to when other attempts fail), but you only keep yourself in the same "woe is me" position as you've always been.
Providing no solution and only punishment has proven to be a politically expedient but failing method. Burgess might suddenly find himself flush with cash for all his pandering, but downtown businesses will not see a drop in crime and will simply move on to their next draconian measure until they finally make the point they're dancing around, that they'd be all the more happy if the problem was taken off their plate and given to someone else.
Withering about spinelessly is not a solution, so whether you're blaming society's ills on black people or panhandlers, you are just as much a part of the problem as you accuse others of being. And let's not forget the incivility inherent to scapegoating people.
This ordinance is not worth anyone's time, but its passage will be worth a lot to legal-types and tax collectors.
More...
Your faked concern for black people is completely trumped by your choice of words, belligerent attitude to the concept of basic humanity and ANGRY ANGRY bleating that, my god, we have a problem, so do something-I-haven't-explained-but-surely-you-have-an-idea-if-only-you-agreed-with-me.
It seems your solution to society's greater ills is to force your opinion on everyone else, that being that black people are the cause of all problems. Clearly, if everyone shared your opinion, the problem would solve itself because then everyone would be behind whatever as-yet selected decisive action you're angling for. In fact, nothing you've said has indicated your own personal stake aside from what OTHERS do to YOU.
At its most fundamental level, a law like Burgess' essentially furthers a useless socially backward meme that one group is the root cause of one of society's ills. In this case, it's the panhandlers that are destroying civility in this city. We target them and say "no, you are not wanted" and hope they magically vanish.
Of course, they won't. You can scan the bible for "beggar" and find numerous stories about them, and that's a work of fiction from 2,000 years ago with further stories from 3,000 years ago. Moreover, you also find that a majority of crime that's uniform to any specific culture or ethnicity is the result of society at large, not just that sole group. In the 1800s it was the irish-americans that were basically shoved down by society into squalid conditions like shaky tenements built on the Collect Pond and mistreated, and as such, became the most violent group in America at the time. The advent of Tammany Hall showed that it was political helplessness, social prejudices and poverty perpetuated on a society-wide basis that bred this crime. And yet, Tammany required assistance from more benevolent political factions to grow into what it was, factions that didn't share their relative social disadvantages. Larger society followed, and while Tammany Hall proved to be easily corrupted, its zenith was not the product of simply some inbred fault of Irish-Americans (indeed, Boss Tweed was raised by the Scottish side of his family and only fell in with the Irish-Americans and Tammany in his late teens and early 20s). You can shirk responsibility as a member of society-at-large by pointing to a post-racial america (a favorite tactic) or by claiming some kind of genetic weakness in others (controversial, but it's usually what it comes to when other attempts fail), but you only keep yourself in the same "woe is me" position as you've always been.
Providing no solution and only punishment has proven to be a politically expedient but failing method. Burgess might suddenly find himself flush with cash for all his pandering, but downtown businesses will not see a drop in crime and will simply move on to their next draconian measure until they finally make the point they're dancing around, that they'd be all the more happy if the problem was taken off their plate and given to someone else.
Withering about spinelessly is not a solution, so whether you're blaming society's ills on black people or panhandlers, you are just as much a part of the problem as you accuse others of being. And let's not forget the incivility inherent to scapegoating people.
This ordinance is not worth anyone's time, but its passage will be worth a lot to legal-types and tax collectors.
70
@68: Ah, so you're totally averse to facts, sociology and history. You don't happen to work for Burgess, do you?
75
74
A shouting match by an anonymous coward does not a discussion make. I think I'm done here.
Posted by Telsa Grills on March 19, 2010 at 12:16 PM
TRANSLATION: I can't argue against the FACTS about black crime in Seattle except by using illogical emotional appeals and insults.... In short, I got nuthin'. - TeslaGrills
A shouting match by an anonymous coward does not a discussion make. I think I'm done here.
Posted by Telsa Grills on March 19, 2010 at 12:16 PM
TRANSLATION: I can't argue against the FACTS about black crime in Seattle except by using illogical emotional appeals and insults.... In short, I got nuthin'. - TeslaGrills
77
@73: Ah, so you can use google. Glad I got you to that point, that was the first part of this thought exercise. Does this bear out, when you use google:
If you're interested in facts. And of course you wouldn't ever lie about what your search turns up, would you?
Because you will not find one post about a murdered Seattle Black on Slog.
If you're interested in facts. And of course you wouldn't ever lie about what your search turns up, would you?
78
Huh, I'm a bit baffled by all the fear of the homeless. I'm female, middle-class, and have lived downtown for eight years. I am as pleasant to the homeless as to anyone else and they return the respect. If someone is really pestering me, I'll say no. Or tell them to just go away. They aren't monsters, guys.
80
Wow, Mr. X, your brilliant "Klan" remark has made the facts that blacks committed 14 of the 28 murders in Seattle in 2008 and twelve of the 21 murders in Seattle in 2009 vanish like magic! It is amazing! All you need to make reality go away is to shriek "Klan"!!
84
I don't need to offer a solution in order to point out the fact that black thugs cause far more serious problems in Seattle than the begging bums. A doctor does not need to be able to cure terminal cancer in order to identify it as the major problem facing the patient.... DUH!!!
85
Ah yes, and water is wet*, the sky is blue*, cats have whiskers* and the bears shit in the woods*.
To that end, I'm pretty sure comparing yourself to an expert making an educated assessment completely shoots down any argument you've had from beginning to end. Good thing you never had any argument to begin with, huh?
To that end, I'm pretty sure comparing yourself to an expert making an educated assessment completely shoots down any argument you've had from beginning to end. Good thing you never had any argument to begin with, huh?
86
BC - huh? That argument is lame lame lame, even for you. Guess what: the fact remains that Seattle's worst civility problems come from blacks, and none of your weak ridicule will change the fact that blacks commit half the murders in Seattle while making up only a tiny percentage of the population here. You just out-lameo'ed yourself again!!!!! Thanks baconcat!!!!!!
87
One murder does not suddenly throw the city into a tailspin, nor will a couple dozen. Civility is not going to be damaged, people don't decide "aw fuck, did you hear about that shooting? I'm going to be a jackass to everyone". Civilizations have risen and fallen, but crime has been a constant thing.
When your agenda hinges on inserting your biases and prejudices into as many unrelated issues as you possibly can, it's pretty clear that you have no real or legitimate argument to make. Okay, so you have this statistic about how black people are murderers. Therefore, it should follow, they're SO discourteous that it extends to the rest of society. They drag us all down. When someone walks by a black person, they're suddenly -- INSTANTLY! -- filled with rage. That makes sense, absolutely.
I guess I missed the poll asking folks if they immediately began punching strangers when they heard about a shooting in the hood, but I guess that makes this whole Burgess thing clear to me now.
When your agenda hinges on inserting your biases and prejudices into as many unrelated issues as you possibly can, it's pretty clear that you have no real or legitimate argument to make. Okay, so you have this statistic about how black people are murderers. Therefore, it should follow, they're SO discourteous that it extends to the rest of society. They drag us all down. When someone walks by a black person, they're suddenly -- INSTANTLY! -- filled with rage. That makes sense, absolutely.
I guess I missed the poll asking folks if they immediately began punching strangers when they heard about a shooting in the hood, but I guess that makes this whole Burgess thing clear to me now.
89
@88: No, I'm the only *cat in this *cat family. :(
My family was viciously mugged while out walking with their friends Miss Tomato and Mister Lettuce. They're in the hereafter now :(
My family was viciously mugged while out walking with their friends Miss Tomato and Mister Lettuce. They're in the hereafter now :(
90
My sincerest condolences. I've spent time with Messrs. Toast & Mayonaise and they had nothing but lovely things to say.
91
87
"One murder does not suddenly throw the city into a tailspin, nor will a couple dozen, as long as the victims and killers are black. Civility is not going to be damaged, people don't decide "aw fuck, did you hear about that shooting?
"Because the White Liberal power structure doesn't give a rat's ass about blacks, murdered or otherwise.
In fact the only blacks that make it into the attention of Seattle are those with the poor form to murder White Liberal Homosexuals.
"When they hear about a shooting in the hood White Liberals just shrug."
"One murder does not suddenly throw the city into a tailspin, nor will a couple dozen, as long as the victims and killers are black. Civility is not going to be damaged, people don't decide "aw fuck, did you hear about that shooting?
"Because the White Liberal power structure doesn't give a rat's ass about blacks, murdered or otherwise.
In fact the only blacks that make it into the attention of Seattle are those with the poor form to murder White Liberal Homosexuals.
"When they hear about a shooting in the hood White Liberals just shrug."
93
Personally, I'm thinking it's all the pit bulls selling girl scout cookies at the ATMS we need to watch out for, and their service humans.
But I refuse to live in Fear.
Only suburbanites and unpatriotic people live in Fear.
But I refuse to live in Fear.
Only suburbanites and unpatriotic people live in Fear.
94
Kill yourself tonight Will in Seattle. Even the liberals on slog recognize what a colossal tard you are.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (94) RSS