• Food and Drink
• Forest Hills
• Rego Park

• Log in
• Register
• RSS for this post's comments

Comments

• I love that comment thread.

  But seriously: Whew! I really think that a Popeyes chicken restaurant would have brought a lot of black Negroes to FoHi. Im not prejudice but they’d probably leave chicken bones and abortions all over the place lol

  Posted by Jim
  on January 9th, 2008 at 8:49 pm

• Aren’t eggs chicken abortions?
  Sorry..totally off topic but I just thought about it after the last line.
  

  Posted by jkny321
  on January 9th, 2008 at 10:01 pm

• I’m actually sickened by Jim’s racist post. Steve, can’t you remove that as a textbook offensive and neanderthal comment?

  Posted by Dudely
  on January 9th, 2008 at 10:53 pm

• I agree with Dudely, Jim’s post is disgusting.

  Posted by judy
  on January 9th, 2008 at 11:37 pm

• Jim is an old friend of mine who lives 800 miles away, has never even been to Queens (probably–maybe the airport, I guess) and is using his unique brand of very-effective edgy humor to mock the stupidity of racists and bad spellers. The comment stays! Check out his own blog sometime; it’s very entertaining.

  Posted by Steve
  on January 10th, 2008 at 1:22 am

• The only problem is that we all don’t know Jim and obviously his comment comes off as racist and sets a bad tone for Forest Hills. How would you like it if some person who you don’t know 1,000 miles away made racist jewish comments. You’d be screeeaaaaming and your insensitivity to this is clearly a double standard.

  Posted by Stipe
  on January 10th, 2008 at 10:48 am

• I don’t know Jim, but I got quite clearly that he was mocking the real racists–the ones who fret euphamistically about “riff raff” and that Popeyes will attract “outsiders.”

  Posted by Sarah
  on January 10th, 2008 at 12:10 pm

• Talk about bad spelling . . . make that “euphemistically.”

  Posted by Sarah
  on January 10th, 2008 at 12:16 pm

• Yeah, like Sarah said, I think it’s fairly clear. I understand the concern, but on the contrary, I am very capable of recognizing satirical fake anti-Semitism and, in fact, do so on a regular basis.

  Posted by Steve
  on January 10th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

• Steve, you cheap spineless Jew. (am I being serious or satirical?)

  The point is that you may be able to recognize satirical racist remarks but other may not and are offended. Its like the use of the “n” word or the terms “ho”, etc. The user may be joking around but it offends a lot of other people.

  Posted by Stipe
  on January 10th, 2008 at 1:08 pm

• Much as I am myself a fan of often ‘edgy’ and somewhat offensive humor, I do agree that posting comments like that on a website is in rather poor taste. I don’t think using racist comments to mock racists has been unique for some time anyways.

  Posted by Cyn
  on January 10th, 2008 at 1:13 pm

• Edgy or sarcastic humor is fine, and I understand it is meant to satirize and demean those who would have racist viewpoints, but I think the reference to abortions and the fact that it is not so over the top to be obviously a joke makes Jim’s reference tasteless and inappropriate.

  Posted by Peter
  on January 10th, 2008 at 1:28 pm

• Stipe: Simple, you’re being satirical–or, more accurately, you’re making a point. Thus I would not intepret that as anti-Semitism. Believe me, I’ve certainly heard enough from Jim and others to tell the difference. By the way, you mention the N-word, which you’ll notice Jim did not use even though he certainly had ample opportunity to do so. That was an important choice. He probably didn’t make it consciously, but he did know that doesn’t work on any level.

  Cyn and Peter: I would argue that posting comments like that is really the best way to get at racists, unique or not. People can talk all they want about racism, but talk is cheap. I think it’s more effective to really make these people look like the Neanderthals they are. If Jim’s comments were more over the top, they would have been less funny and less effective.

  You know the truth? This is really a generational thing. I’m 29. Jim is 31. I don’t know how old you guys are, but I bet it’s older–am I right about that? I know the audience for this site skews older than I am, but that’s why I moderate my writing to appeal to the largest possible readership. Even then, I might occasionally slip up, like with my reference to “Jew stuff” a while back. Older Jews hear that phrase and they think KKK and Nazis; younger Jews might think it’s funny because it’s mocking a mildly or overtly bigoted, out-of-touch sensibility.

  Here’s a good example for you. I read two left-wingish political websites on a regular basis, Bartcop and Wonkette. Both claim on some level to be humor sites. The eponymous Bartcop is north of 50, whereas the Wonkette team is composed of snarky twentysomethings employed by a hip young blogging empire. I’m sure they go into the voting booth and pull the lever for the exact same people. But a while ago, Wonkette reported that Bartcop’s friend, “America-hating talk show host Mike Malloy,” was fired by Air America Radio. Bart flew into a fit of rage, wondering whether Wonkette just hated Malloy or if they were “just a right-wing hate site that hates all Democrats.” When he went to their homepage to investigate, he was shocked to find insinuations that Chelsea Clinton was a Satan worshipper. He posted a retraction after what was surely many people e-mailed him to let him know their respective sites were on the same side. He just hadn’t gotten Wonkette’s brand of humor. Now, this isn’t a perfect example, because race isn’t involved. But it’s very much the same problem. Wonkette has certainly made comments like Jim’s before, and in fact, they’ve done it about Jews, for which they’ve been pilloried on right-wing sites that didn’t get it and were quick to accuse them of being, like all liberals, anti-Semitic.

  Posted by Steve
  on January 10th, 2008 at 3:36 pm

• Bottom line is, you have to be respectful towards others and not say anything that may offend them, even if you mean it in jest. Steve, in all honesty, I find your excuses to be very poor. Giving Jim credit for not using the ‘N’ word is horrific. Its like giving credit to a serial killer for not using a grenade to do his tasks while instead he uses a machine gun.

  Whatever happened to good manners and politeness.

  Posted by Stipe
  on January 10th, 2008 at 3:58 pm

• Hey Steve and all,
  I can see both side of this, and I’m 33 and Jewish. I could see how some people might read it the wrong way and take offense, and also see that the absurdity of the comments were meant to be just that… absurd. But I will tell you when I first saw that posting on this thread, I knew it would cause some friction on here regardless of the intention.
  But a little drama is always good!

  Posted by Lisa - aka KGCritter
  on January 10th, 2008 at 3:58 pm

• I’m 35 and African American and it’s offensive. The problem with blogs and email is that it’s impossible to distinguish tone. So while you may know Jim and fine his satire tolerable, I don’t. I was appalled on reading his comment, but refrained from commenting to watch how you and the rest of this site bloggers would handle the posting. And from this young African American moderate perspective, Steve, you botched it. In fact, I initially thought your posting about the comment staying was placed by an imposter.

  Posted by FoHi110
  on January 10th, 2008 at 4:03 pm

• This is true… it is really hard to tell the tone on emails/websites/blogs sometimes.

  Posted by Lisa - aka KGCritter
  on January 10th, 2008 at 4:07 pm

• I’m not African American, but found the comments posted by Jim very offensive. I suppose all those who see the humor in Jim’s “edgy” post were also in favor of the now infamous Don Imus comment? Also, what’s the deal with the mention of how Popeye’s attracts riff raff? Is it only the riff raff that likes to eat fried chicken? Heck, call me riff raff then because I too have made the trek to other parts in search of Popeye’s chicken.

  Posted by jhdomster
  on January 10th, 2008 at 4:25 pm

• All I’m saying is that this is a particular brand of humor that is pretty common these days and which I myself do appreciate. Today Wonkette, the site I mentioned above and one of my very favorite sites on all the Internet, published this:

  Famous whore Hillary Clinton, in some sobby vagina chat with Katie Couric following her New Hamsters victory, knew she would win, despite her own pollsters having her down by 11 points. The coffee, she says, was magically anti-Negro that morning: “On Tuesday morning when I got up before the sun was up, and was out helping to deliver coffee to everybody who was working for me, I felt really good by the time I came in around early afternoon.” Of course she felt good! Nothing like a good scripted cry to make you feel all dandy inside.

  You might interpret this to mean the writer is a misogynist, a racist and thinks Hillary Clinton is a deplorable, principle-free crybaby and a liar. I can look at it and posit that the writer thinks sexism and racism are absurd and that popular criticism of Hillary Clinton is far fetched and overblown. I know this not in spite of how it’s written but because of how it’s written. It’s code, basically. And that’s how I interpreted Jim’s comment. You may have read the above and not gotten it, and that’s OK. You haven’t read as many Gawker Media blogs as I have. (Neither has Jim, as far as I know, but this is a common style of relevant Internet humor that goes far beyond Gawker Media.) But that doesn’t mean I should restrict communication by those who do relate to that form of social commentary.

  As I said, I wouldn’t use this kind of writing myself on this site, but if someone wants to do it in a comment, I’m not going to stop him. Yeah, it’s tough to distinguish at first, but it becomes a lot easier the more you read. I am genuinely sorry that people were offended, but I solemnly promise you that I would not have been similarly offended by something directed at a group to which I belonged and no double standard is at work here. I think I’ve deleted exactly one non-spam comment in the history of this blog, and I did it because it was potentially libelous and could get me sued. I’m certainly not going to delete anything because it can be misinterpreted.

  FoHI110, as you’re African-American, I’m particularly sorry that you took offense. It may be little consolation, but I can tell you this: I’ve encountered plenty of white people in my life who would blanch in horror at the thought of ever publicly saying anything like Jim said in his comment and would even tell you they think everybody is equal, yet harbor unconscious, casually racist attitudes that could potentially affect your life in a very real way–such as by, say, passing you over for a job or paying you less when they do give you one. And I also know Jim (who is not white, by the way), who genuinely deplores and is perplexed by racism.

  Jhdomster, Imus wasn’t kidding. It’s a very important point.

  Posted by Steve
  on January 10th, 2008 at 4:37 pm

• RE “Riff Raff”: I was referring to certain commenters on Forest Hills 72 who implied as much (as well as certain commenters on this blog who seem to think it’s okay to call other people “riff raff”). Jhdomster, you can eat anywhere you want and I for one wouldn’t think any less of you (not that you care one way or the other, I’m sure).

  Posted by Sarah
  on January 10th, 2008 at 5:04 pm

• Steve - While this humor is common, it doesn’t make it appropriate or right. That’s like saying because prostitution and drug use is common, society should accept it.

  I think you should stand up and denounce it rather than trying to explain your way through it which is pretty….spineless.

  Posted by Stipe
  on January 10th, 2008 at 5:09 pm

• Why am I not being understood here? I can’t denounce it, because I think it does a more cutting job of belittling bigots than any form of humor since Richard Pryor’s and plays an important role in modern social discourse. What would be spineless would be for me to say something I didn’t believe just to make people happy. I can’t do that. No matter how you interpreted it, Jim’s comment was an anti-racist comment. This is what he was saying: “People who think this way are stupid.”

  Posted by Steve
  on January 10th, 2008 at 5:13 pm

• Whoa, I had no idea that satirizing the typical “urban outskirts racist” (I live in Evanston, just outside of Chicago, and I see a lot of sentiment like that on local message boards as well) would ignite the outrage of the gentle people of Forest Hills like that!

  Steve, thanks for explaining and defending my comment at length. All I have to add is, if you actually read the second comment thread on Forest Hills 72 linked in the post, and then read my comment, I think it’s fairly obvious that it’s mockery.

  Also, I love Popeyes (it really is spelled without the apostrophe, BTW) and am always puzzled when people (like those in the aforementioned comment thread) say it is somehow worse than McDonald’s.

  Posted by Jim
  on January 10th, 2008 at 5:19 pm

• This is somehow very relevant, but I’m too exhausted to try to dissect and spell out the satire of it right now . . .

  http://wonkette.com/343428/and.....rack-obama

  Posted by Sarah
  on January 10th, 2008 at 5:27 pm

• Wow, talk about timely.

  Posted by Steve
  on January 10th, 2008 at 5:29 pm

• For some reason, you seem to think that I and other QC bloggers have never been exposed to satire. I have. I get it. I was an editor of student newspaper in high school. I read the Lampoon religiously in college. If Jim’s comment was published in the Lampoon or on Wonkette, the context of his humor would be obvious. Jim is an infrequent blogger here, so his comment comes out of leftfield. I will take Steve’s word that Jim is harmless, but he lacks commonsense and sensitivity. Commonsense and sensitivity would dictate you understand your audience before posting such a “edgy” comment. Would either of you make a comment like this at the water-cooler in front of your boss if he/she were African American? Would the satire be appreciated?

  Posted by FoHi110
  on January 10th, 2008 at 6:03 pm

• Well, I don’t think I’m unjustified in thinking that certain people haven’t been exposed to this kind of satire. You haven’t been guilty of this (because you’re only 35?), but I do see comments above that reflect a lack of understanding that Jim’s comment was meant as satire.

  I will not argue with you about Jim’s lack of common sense and sensitivity–neither would he, probably. If you look at my original comment, all I’m doing is explaining the motivation behind it, which I felt justified in doing because it was by someone I’ve known for a long time and whose satirical motivations I know I understand. I did it as soon as I saw someone take offense. I felt that my providing the context made it OK, and I stand by that. If someone I didn’t know posted a similar comment and I wasn’t sure whether or not it was meant in seriousness, the situation would have been different. Honestly, I can’t tell you how I would have judged that exact comment coming from a stranger, because I didn’t experience that scenario.

  Meanwhile, I’ve said several times that I wouldn’t post such a comment here on this blog, so I think that should answer your question about whether I’d do it in front of my African-American boss.

  Posted by Steve
  on January 10th, 2008 at 6:21 pm

• Steve said - “If someone I didn’t know posted a similar comment and I wasn’t sure whether or not it was meant in seriousness, the situation would have been different.”

  But before that, Steve said - “I am very capable of recognizing satirical fake anti-Semitism and, in fact, do so on a regular basis”.

  Give it up Steve. You’re wrong and have become an accomplice to the rude, beligerant and offensive behavior of others. Its shameful and I think I’m over this site given the history of offensive comments to both Christians, Muslims and now African-Americans.

  Posted by Stipe
  on January 10th, 2008 at 6:29 pm

• Well, I’m sorry you feel that way. My two comments are not in conflict, by the way. In the first, I’m saying the situation would be different if I weren’t sure. In the second, I’m saying I often am sure. I never said I nail it every time. It’s kind of absurd to suggest I did mean that, because I have long had a very firm belief that there’s nothing you can ever know for sure. This kind of stretching to find a contradiction suggests that there aren’t really any contradictions in what I said.

  “Rude” and “offensive,” perhaps, but your description of the behavior as “belligerent” indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what’s going on here, as I was saying earlier. Meanwhile, I can think of one case, months ago, in which I wrote something very, very mild about evangelical megachurches–not “Christians”–that could hardly be called an “offensive comment” and didn’t even qualify as negative. I can’t think of anything controversial I’ve ever written about Muslims, here or anywhere else. Did you just assume I have because I’m Jewish?

  Posted by Steve
  on January 10th, 2008 at 7:04 pm

• Steve - I think your view is a bit different because you know Jim. I’m 35 and if you read it objectively, you think it is satire but it is not 100% obvious. Even if it is satire, this is not a comedy blog and the reference to abortions is pretty bad. I don’t think you have to take it down if you believe in not censoring comments and I don’t think you would ever want to be offensive, but I’m surprised you are defending it this much.

  Posted by Peter
  on January 10th, 2008 at 7:12 pm

• Steve, I’ve changed my mind both about my original comment and about your defense of it.

  Frankly, satire is not the kind of humor that should be tossed off willy nilly in any old place by average people. It is the kind of humor that should be handled by the professionals and has no place outside of:

  1. The Onion.
  2. Professional Weblogs that are run by Gawker Media.
  3. The Lampoon.

  And believe me, back in the day, I loved the Lampoon, partly because it was so humorous but also because I knew to put my satire glasses on before I read it so that I wouldn’t get blindsided by any secret jokes! I hate when that happens. It’s even worse when other people are laughing because then I feel pressured to find out why they are.

  I mean, what would happen if everyone on the streets and on the internet just up and started to be satirical whenever they felt like it? You would always have to look at context and try to discern intent. Honestly, who wants to do that while conversing or reading casually? It’s a lot more work, and I’m a busy professional. Someday, I’m going to have a family, and we will be sitting down to eat a dinner table every night. That means cooking a lot of dinner, which means that I DO NOT HAVE TIME TO FIGURE OUT WHAT PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO SAY!

  You can look down on me if you want, but I like reading and listening via keyword. (Except when I’m reading the Lampoon!) When I hear a sentence, and I hear a word like “community” in it, I classify it as a “positive” sentence. When I hear the word “black,” I put that sentence on alert, and if the words “Negro” or “abortion” show up, a “buzzer” sound plays in my head, and I toss that sentence into the “negative” pile and respond accordingly! Perhaps this is “lazy,” but it works 75% of the time. And it also frees up time for me to make dinner for my family (as mentioned above) as well as complain about new stores in my neighborhood that I dislike and my ethnic neighbors’ sense of style, which I feel is too loud and garish and clashes with my own sense of style, which favors beige - and plenty of it!

  So, take it from someone who knows, the system works, and we don’t need rogue sarcastros running around throwing wrenches in it. Not at the bus stop, not on Queens Central, and certainly not at the Crate and Barrel! I apologize for suddenly acting up with a satirical comment like that. I don’t know what got into me, but I know this: If I ever witness a racist discussion, I’m not going to turn to my fellow witnesses and mock it. Why? Because they might not be prepared! Instead, I will simply state, “Those guys are racist and bad.”

  Posted by Jim
  on January 10th, 2008 at 8:09 pm

• Jim, your sensitivity is overwhelming. Your apology sounds so sincere. Unfortunately, I’ve come across worse people than Jim, so if he chooses to offend and then offer a satirical “apology” so be it.

  Ironically, in my experience, it is always the most liberal, supposedly well-intentioned, ” non-racist” people that have the hardest time admitting they might have said something offensive.

  Steve, why you chose to defend him escapes me.

  Posted by FoHi110
  on January 11th, 2008 at 12:17 pm

• Wow, Steve and Jim. Unfortunately I have found that way too many folks are way too literal and don’t get it. So be it. I got Jim’s sarcasm right off the bat, all times by the way. Especially his last post, yes Jim only the professionals should be handling dishing out irony, sarcasm, snarkiness, etc. Lord help us if us amateurs got involved with any of that!!

  Hopefully the writers for our favorite professional snarky shows will come back to work so people will once again have exposure to this!

  Posted by KGResident
  on January 11th, 2008 at 12:48 pm

• You folks just don’t get it and apparently never will. I have made many sarcastic comments in my life, which someone just did not get and was offended. I said it was meant to be sarcastic and apologized with no hint of sarcasm. The apology was accepted, and we moved on. I consider that common decency.

  Posted by FoHi110
  on January 11th, 2008 at 1:08 pm

• I’ve already apologized, though. I simply won’t apologize for the comment being racist, because it’s not.

  Posted by Steve
  on January 11th, 2008 at 1:18 pm

• Steve, you have apologized and did not argue with Jim’s lack of commonsense and sensitivity. It’s your buddy’s response that amazes me and to whom my comments were directed.

  Posted by FoHi110
  on January 11th, 2008 at 1:25 pm

• I hate when people leave abortions all over the place, regardless of whether they’re black Negroes or nonblack Negroes.

  Posted by Peter D.
  on January 11th, 2008 at 4:23 pm

• Thank you, Steve, for this timely post. And here I thought I was the only Queens blogger to be called racist for allowing provocative comments. In fact, I think I may make my own post out of this.

  Posted by Queens Crapper
  on January 12th, 2008 at 3:27 pm

• I just want to be on the record as declaring I like Popeyes - their spicy chicken tastes great…nice and juicy…it puts KFC to shame…:)

  Posted by David Quintana
  on January 12th, 2008 at 4:47 pm

• Oi! Gevalt! Is the whole world gone mishuggah?!

  This is a free country. Our 1st Amendment states:

  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

  Also, Ben Franklin was wise enough to say:

  “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ”

  Yes, that saying is applicable when you think of censorship in its entirety.

  If you don’t like it, you can simply change the website you are looking at, turn the channel on your radio or tv, close the book.

  No one is forcing you to look at it. But to tell him to remove it is to take away his right to free speech and enters into the arena of censorship. What right have you to decide what I can or cannot read? Who are you to decide that I will be able to understand its meaning?

  I thoroughly enjoy all those who have the nerve and courage to be edgy and controversial. We should be thanking him, not trying to control him.

  I’m a 38-year old Native NYer who is Christian living just north of Seattle. Please don’t tell me that the let-it-roll off your shoulder, tough-skinned NY I remember with fondness, where everyone knew a little yiddish, has died the tragic death and left behind thin-skinned, spineless sheeple!

  I have Forgotten NY and Queens Crapper to thank for finding this blog.

  Posted by Tracy D.N.
  on January 12th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

• Steve, it’s nice to know that the Queens Crapper thinks you’ve got major “Cajones”. Unless you’ve got some rather large boxes in your pants, I think it seems cooler to state you’ve got major “Cojones” instead!

  Posted by jhdomster
  on January 12th, 2008 at 7:57 pm

• Jesus fucking Christ.

  Posted by metalspike
  on January 13th, 2008 at 3:45 am

• “And here I thought I was the only Queens blogger to be called racist for allowing provocative comments.”

  To call the comments on your blog “provocative” is laughable. They are infantile, prejudiced and anti-immigrant. Your commenters are not sophisticated enough to be provocative.

  Posted by JoshQueens
  on January 13th, 2008 at 5:39 pm

• And it isn’t only the commenters on Queens Crap that are prejudiced.

  Posted by Peter
  on January 13th, 2008 at 6:26 pm

• Yes, apparently the ones here are too!

  Posted by Fred
  on January 13th, 2008 at 7:16 pm

• The whole thing is disgustingly hypocritical. I’ve lost respect for this site. As for Queens Crap, that guy seems to have looked at too many pink brick houses that have caused him serious disillusion.

  Posted by Dudely
  on January 13th, 2008 at 9:13 pm

• We can argue endlessly about whether Jim’s comment original comment is in bad taste. But whether it is or isn’t, one thing is clear: his comment is not racist, it is scathingly anti-racist, meant to lampoon the people who couch their prejudices in code words and euphemism. I can certainly understand why some people are uncomfortable or even offended by his language. But to criticize Steve for refusing to take down the comment is unfair and misguided.

  Posted by Sarah
  on January 14th, 2008 at 11:01 am

• Kudos to Sarah for putting it so well: “But whether it is or isn’t, one thing is clear: his comment is not racist, it is scathingly anti-racist, meant to lampoon the people who couch their prejudices in code words and euphemism.”

  One would think that this is so obvious that it doesn’t need saying, but sadly, it does.

  Posted by peterd
  on January 14th, 2008 at 7:21 pm

• I didn’t know racism was always so black and white. (pun not intended) I didn’t know identifying racism was so objective. Thanks Sarah and PeterD for pointing out how obvious Jim’s lack of racism is. Obviously in today’s world, there is no veiled racism. Nope, racist comment are always blunt and always explicit.

  Posted by FoHi110
  on January 14th, 2008 at 8:27 pm

• Jim, your last post read as an Onion article. The title should have been “Area Man Has Family Dinner Every Night.” Love it, you and my beloved Onion!

  Posted by jellystone
  on January 14th, 2008 at 10:55 pm

• http://gawker.com/5002214/whit.....ity-subway

  Hilarious. 71st and Continental made it onto the map!

  Posted by West
  on January 15th, 2008 at 10:30 am

• that is so awesome.

  Posted by jellystone
  on January 15th, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Post a Comment