July 9, 2007

Arguing on the internet is like....well, you know how it goes

I should have known better, I really should have. I found an article on a blog (that I will NOT link to, I'd rather not give them the hits) that was claiming a Miami nightclub was using a double standard against, of all people, LeBron James. Now, I know that not all of my 7 readers are big sports fans, but I KNOW you know who this guy is. The article was citing (well, not really CITING since there was no link) the Miami Herald, this is what the Herald said: "Sightings: LeBron James refused entrance at Mansion for wearing shorts, forcing him to rush off to find long pants." If it takes you a minute to find it, I understand. It's one line in a longer article. So to claim that this nightclub is enforcing some double standard might be a bit of a stretch at this point. That didn't stop the article from "digging" into the story to see if there were any pictures of people in shorts at this club. SURPRISE, there was a picture posted on the article of some guy in shorts and ugly argyle socks at what looks like an art gallery, CLEARLY not a night club. So I put on my detective's hat and snoop around a little. Lo and behold I find the picture! It is from some dude's blog about men's fashion. Imagine my surprise. It had NO bearing whatsoever to the Miami nightclub. Did that stop the article from posting it? Nope. It even had "There's nothing more to say" written above it. Now I take off my detective hat and put on my lawyer hat...whatever that looks like. I respond with this:

Do you really believe that any hot Miami nightclub would turn away a celebrity of James' status because he is black? These places thrive on celebrity name-dropping. Could it be at all possible that there are different dress codes depending on the sponsored event? Immediately claiming some kind of racial bias is not only irresponsible, but makes you seem ignorant.
PS I ran the same search and found the same picture. If your assistant bothered to do ANY research of the image, he/she would have discovered that the picture is from a men's style blog and the caption states: "This cat checking out the NADA show looked cool in long shorts and two different argyle socks." It has nothing to do with the Mansion Night Club.

I don't think it sounds TOO mean, I don't call anyone names. Here's what ensued:
[blogger] said...

"but makes you seem ignorant."

Sir, indeed.

At times, ignorance is all in the perception.

How do you think you are being perceived....right now?

It isn't as bad to seem ignorant, as it is to be ignorant.

Ya feel us, bay bay?

[blogger] said...

"It has nothing to do with the Mansion Night Club."

Sir, your desire to support these establishments in their clear mission to segregate themselves from young, Negro athletes is downright ridiculous.

You yourself ran the very search we did. And google returned the same image.

'mansion nightclub shorts' = proof of divergent standards.

And we don't appreciate you trying to lay waste to our humble staff.

Scrumtrulescent said...

Please, enlighten me oh wisest of all. How am I being ignorant? I can provide the link to the page that the image was pulled from if you'd like

Scrumtrulescent said...

I don't support night clubs, in fact, I despise them. The picture is being used entirely out of context and provides no proof of any double standard

[blogger] said...

"How am I being ignorant? "

Sir, exactly.

[blogger] said...

"The picture is being used entirely out of context "

Sir, the picture is being used precisely in the context we are using it.

How can you argue this?

Scrumtrulescent said...

The picture is not of anyone attending the Mansion Night Club, so I ask you why you posted it, what does it prove?

[blogger] said...

"so I ask you why you posted it, what does it prove? "

Sir, did you or did you not run a google search of 'mansion nightclub shorts'?

Did you or did you not receive the offered image in the results?

What more proof do you need?

Scrumtrulescent said...

the reason that image appears in the search results is because the article mentions a particular mansion, not the Mansion Nightclub. I'm surprised that you didn't check your facts before posting it. It's apparent that you enjoy listening to yourself talk, or type, as it were, more than engaging in any meaningful discussion. Additionally, you are quite adept at ignoring questions and dodging any attempts to rightfully question your righteous indignation, perhaps you should get into politics.

[blogger] said...

"I'm surprised that you didn't check your facts before posting it. "

Sir, our facts are 100% in order.

We said that we ran a google search of 'mansion nightclub' shorts and that that photo was returned to us.

Those are the facts.

Prove them wrong.

And, if you can't, apologize and plead ignorance.

Scrumtrulescent said...

Fair enough. And I suppose it's possible that the posting of the picture is simply an attempt to point out how ridiculous that guy looks and I misinterpreted the tone of the post and the blog in general. But if your intent was to use that picture to prove that men in shorts DO, in fact, get into the Mansion Nightclub (which it cannot do), then perhaps you should apologize to the owner of the photograph for using it and not crediting him.

[blogger] said...

"Fair enough."

Sir, your attempts to mitigate your ignorance and inability to prove our fact finding wrong by deflecting attention to the picture are sorry at best, and shiteous at worst.

You were instructed to either prove the fact wrong, or to apologize.

Apologize to our research assistant, or slink away with your ignorant tail thoroughly tucked away under your spanked backside.

Scrumtrulescent said...

The journalistic integrity of this website is astoundingly bad. Although I suppose integrity is meaningless to those who won't admit the simplest of errors and will not tolerate any kind of criticism. When you only answer to yourself, you don't ever have to be wrong, do you?

I didn't go back after that because, well, we know what happens when you argue on the internet. Using this guy's reasoning I could post a picture of Justin Timberlake and say this was the result of a search for "smart black man" (do it yourself, you'll find it). That blog was not big enough for both of our egos. I should have expected that considering the title of the blog, as it referenced a particular religion (some might say it's prone to fanaticism). Thankfully, being called names on an obscure blog doesn't affect my self-esteem.


Anonymous said...

Have you seen that commercial where the kid says all the things to the other kid he would have said over the net and it looks positively ridiculous. This situation reminded me of that. You can fight the good fight, which you were as the premise of this clown's argument was crap and his logic was circular to say the least, but ultimately it doesn't matter. They will hear none of it and it is easy to plan a response on the net that is condescending and smug when you don't have to face it.

Ugh...if i weren't a blogger myself i would hate them. Lucky for me i make no attempt to speak with authority on anything and my blog is mostly dribble. :-D

Henry the 8th said...

"Thankfully, being called names on an obscure blog doesn't affect my self-esteem."

Yea, obviously.

Cause it not like you just made a post about it and recounted the entire conversation to make yourself feel better. LOL.

Scrumtrulescent said...

You see the kind of people I was dealing with? I was over it all once this post was up, they don't want to let it go.

Sean said...

Thank you for bringing such nice posts.

--------------- ---------------