[002]
MrDeath
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I did read it, and those aren\'t \
to:
I did read it, and those aren\\\'t \\\"possible theories,\\\" they\\\'re dripping sarcasm followed by a direct accusation of being racist.
The blogger\\\'s tone is clear: The paragraph starting with \\\"Was it the Starbucks...\\\" is a listing of all the good things about the neighborhood that Butcher couldn\\\'t possibly have seen as the bad parts. It\\\'s said sarcastically to contrast the following paragraph, which are still-benign things, but with the ethnicity of each called out to imply that Butcher walked in and panicked at the sight of something non-White.
He then sets aside the line about black people on its own, to deliberately and specifically call the author out, by name, with an accusatory and condescending tone: \\\"Was it the Black people, Jim Butcher? Did they make you feel unsafe?\\\"
That is not bewilderment, that is confrontational and accusatory rhetoric--he seems to take the description like a personal attack. He\\\'s assuming that while Butcher didn\\\'t know anything about the neighborhood, he knew the demographic of it enough that that alone made him deliberately change it to depict it as a crappy slum...while removing the demographic that \\\"scared\\\" him so much, apparently.
I have to say, to me, if it really \\\'\\\'was\\\'\\\' that Jim Butcher was racist against black people, wouldn\\\'t it make more sense for him to make the crappy slum that Harry doesn\\\'t want to walk around in predominantly black? Not saying it\\\'s right to \\\"whitewash\\\" the place, but it seems contradictory to me the idea that he\\\'s both A. racist against \\\'\\\'black\\\'\\\' people and B. making the crappy area predominantly \\\'\\\'white\\\'\\\'.
The much, \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more likely scenario is that Butcher looked at a map of Chicago or someone who had been there, got some misinformation and came to the wrong conclusion about the area. Or that he had heard there was an area close to there that was rough (the original post mentions things are bad several streets down from where Dresden goes) and assumed the same was true for the surrounding streets as well.
The blogger\\\'s tone is clear: The paragraph starting with \\\"Was it the Starbucks...\\\" is a listing of all the good things about the neighborhood that Butcher couldn\\\'t possibly have seen as the bad parts. It\\\'s said sarcastically to contrast the following paragraph, which are still-benign things, but with the ethnicity of each called out to imply that Butcher walked in and panicked at the sight of something non-White.
He then sets aside the line about black people on its own, to deliberately and specifically call the author out, by name, with an accusatory and condescending tone: \\\"Was it the Black people, Jim Butcher? Did they make you feel unsafe?\\\"
That is not bewilderment, that is confrontational and accusatory rhetoric--he seems to take the description like a personal attack. He\\\'s assuming that while Butcher didn\\\'t know anything about the neighborhood, he knew the demographic of it enough that that alone made him deliberately change it to depict it as a crappy slum...while removing the demographic that \\\"scared\\\" him so much, apparently.
I have to say, to me, if it really \\\'\\\'was\\\'\\\' that Jim Butcher was racist against black people, wouldn\\\'t it make more sense for him to make the crappy slum that Harry doesn\\\'t want to walk around in predominantly black? Not saying it\\\'s right to \\\"whitewash\\\" the place, but it seems contradictory to me the idea that he\\\'s both A. racist against \\\'\\\'black\\\'\\\' people and B. making the crappy area predominantly \\\'\\\'white\\\'\\\'.
The much, \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more likely scenario is that Butcher looked at a map of Chicago or someone who had been there, got some misinformation and came to the wrong conclusion about the area. Or that he had heard there was an area close to there that was rough (the original post mentions things are bad several streets down from where Dresden goes) and assumed the same was true for the surrounding streets as well.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I did read it, and those aren\'t \
to:
I did read it, and those aren\\\'t \\\"possible theories,\\\" they\\\'re dripping sarcasm followed by a direct accusation of being racist.
The blogger\\\'s tone is clear: The paragraph starting with \\\"Was it the Starbucks...\\\" is a listing of all the good things about the neighborhood that Butcher couldn\\\'t possibly have seen as the bad parts. It\\\'s said sarcastically to contrast the following paragraph, which are still-benign things, but with the ethnicity of each called out to imply that Butcher walked in and panicked at the sight of something non-White.
He then sets aside the line about black people on its own, to deliberately and specifically call the author out, by name, with an accusatory and condescending tone: \\\"Was it the Black people, Jim Butcher? Did they make you feel unsafe?\\\"
That is not bewilderment, that is confrontational and accusatory rhetoric--he seems to take the description like a personal attack. He\\\'s assuming that while Butcher didn\\\'t know anything about the neighborhood, he knew the demographic of it enough that that alone made him deliberately change it to depict it as a crappy slum...while removing the demographic that \\\"scared\\\" him so much, apparently.
I have to say, to me, if it really \\\'\\\'was\\\'\\\' that Jim Butcher was racist against black people, wouldn\\\'t it make more sense for him to make the crappy slum that Harry doesn\\\'t want to walk around in predominantly black? Not saying it\\\'s right to \\\"whitewash\\\" the place, but it seems contradictory to me the idea that he\\\'s both A. racist against \\\'\\\'black\\\'\\\' people and B. making the crappy area predominantly \\\'\\\'white\\\'\\\'.
The much, \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more likely scenario is that Butcher looked at a map of Chicago or someone who had been there, got some misinformation and came to the wrong conclusion about the area.
The blogger\\\'s tone is clear: The paragraph starting with \\\"Was it the Starbucks...\\\" is a listing of all the good things about the neighborhood that Butcher couldn\\\'t possibly have seen as the bad parts. It\\\'s said sarcastically to contrast the following paragraph, which are still-benign things, but with the ethnicity of each called out to imply that Butcher walked in and panicked at the sight of something non-White.
He then sets aside the line about black people on its own, to deliberately and specifically call the author out, by name, with an accusatory and condescending tone: \\\"Was it the Black people, Jim Butcher? Did they make you feel unsafe?\\\"
That is not bewilderment, that is confrontational and accusatory rhetoric--he seems to take the description like a personal attack. He\\\'s assuming that while Butcher didn\\\'t know anything about the neighborhood, he knew the demographic of it enough that that alone made him deliberately change it to depict it as a crappy slum...while removing the demographic that \\\"scared\\\" him so much, apparently.
I have to say, to me, if it really \\\'\\\'was\\\'\\\' that Jim Butcher was racist against black people, wouldn\\\'t it make more sense for him to make the crappy slum that Harry doesn\\\'t want to walk around in predominantly black? Not saying it\\\'s right to \\\"whitewash\\\" the place, but it seems contradictory to me the idea that he\\\'s both A. racist against \\\'\\\'black\\\'\\\' people and B. making the crappy area predominantly \\\'\\\'white\\\'\\\'.
The much, \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more likely scenario is that Butcher looked at a map of Chicago or someone who had been there, got some misinformation and came to the wrong conclusion about the area.
