Radio DJ/Red Dead Voice Actor Cumia Fired For Racist Twitter Rant

[McMarbles]

Poor, poor Anthony Cumia. Where's the WGDF when we need them? Hover hand mode!

/s

 

[BarbaricGoose]

Gawker as source, oh dear. But yes, i did not scoure the intarwebs for all possible interpretations of this story. I look at the dudes argument and the womans..or accused and accuser. In all the tweets which were supplied he never made the distinct connection that all black people are savage violent animals, or that they are not people. He declared his attackers to be savage violent animals because they attacked him, justified or not. Just because these attackers happen to be black does not make his statement racist. What if the attackers were white? Lets go for the absurd even, what if the attackers were white neo-nazi skinhead douchebags? If he were to label them as savage violent animals for attacking him the way they did, is this racist? I think not.

If you only consider skincolor, then maybe its not that dude who is racist, but you are. Because if all you see is differences so you can feel morally superior for claiming that you dont see them, when obviously you make everything about race and skincolor, your argument is hollow and can be ignored. As to why he took the picture thats for him to know, we can speculate until the moon turns into a giant ball of cheese but that doesnt mean we are correct in our assessment. Should he have stopped when he was asked to? Yes. Does him not stopping justify him being assaulted by multiple men? No. And as i pointed out already, its not racist unless he referred to said attackers as savage violent animals because they were black instead of because they savagely and violently attacked him.

Lol. You're knocking the source? It's a bunch of photographs, man. The article, and any bias therein, is 5 lines long. Nice way to discredit it, though. Solid work--very snarky.

Spoiler: Tweet

What kind of mental gymnastics can we pull with that quote? The "Illegal" bit kind of ruins your idea that violent attacker = savage. Unless he somehow knew that his violent attackers were, in fact, illegals, and not because he's just a fuckin' racist who thinks everyone who doesn't use SPF50 is an illegal.

And finally, he leaves a little--just a little--less to interpretation.

Spoiler: Tweets!

Okay, so the guy strongly believes there's a problem with violence in the black community. He calls his attackers--who cleary weren't white, since he feels the need to constantly state that he is white, and the white race is the one being victimized--savage, violent animals. Oh, and you know, illegals. He calls them illegals too. There's also all those bits where he uses "White boy" and "Home boy," words typically not used by "White boys" themselves. But that's diving into psychology and semantics, so I'll spare you.

I've met a lot of contrarians in my time here, but if you still say this guy isn't racist, I think you're being willfully ignorant. You're free to go on defending him, but I'm done. You're welcome to the last word, but this'll be my last reply. Don't take it personally.

Captcha: Time Lord. You know there's a song by Pagan Altar called Time Lord? 8 minutes long, or something. Haven't heard that in ages...

 

[RA92]

Poor, poor Anthony Cumia. Where's the WGDF when we need them? Hover hand mode!

/s

This thread is ripe for a WGDF comic. The mental gymnastics people are going through to defend this guy is amazing. "His insults are racial, but that doesn't make him racist!" Hahaha!

 

[Plunkies]

Really? That's an insult to you? "Call the word police! Someone has once again said a thing I don't like!"

You seem to be getting nervous there buddy. Hope I didn't make ya' cry.

Yawn. Stick to the actual discussion, preferably to facts. You taking shots at me while simultaneously cowering behind the mods is just embarrassing.

This is from the cdc....

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/m6227a1f3.gif

Is this false? Or are they all just decades of false murder convictions perpetrated on the black populace by a white conspiracy?

A 1994 Justice Department survey of felony cases in the country's 75 largest counties indicated that both the prosecution and conviction rate was actually lower, not higher, than whites. Prosecution rate for blacks was 66%, whites was 69%. Conviction rate for blacks was 75%, whites was 78%.

And this is from the NAACP

http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet

Here's a few other interesting statistics.

-Together, African American and Hispanics comprised 58% of all prisoners in 2008, even though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately one quarter of the US population

-According to Unlocking America, if African American and Hispanics were incarcerated at the same rates of whites, today's prison and jail populations would decline by approximately 50%

The NAACP? A bit biased of a source, is it not? I mean come on, their agenda is literally in their name. Ah whatever, I'll let it slide....

Yes, I would hope that blacks make up a large percentage of prisoners considering they're committing 50% of the homicides in the country. When people commit crimes they're often sent to jail. How does that stat possibly help your argument?

You just provided a single graph, devoid of any context, and nothing more. Care to link to an actual article?

Lol, what article? It's a CDC graph depicting homicides per 100,000 people, categorized by race, over 2 decades. How much more context could you possibly need?

So the claim that blacks in the US (12.6%) are responsible for disproportionately more crimes (50% of homicides, for example, according to 2011 FBI data) is a wild and outright insane claim on the level of denying the holocaust?

Which of my facts are wrong and why? Do you have facts for your claims? If so, please present them.

As I have stated repeatedly, the level of conviction rate is far higher among blacks than whites. Our idea of who is "responsible" for a crime is simply whether they were convicted for it or not. Ergo, following that mind numbingly idiotic line of logic, it stands that of course Blacks would be labeled as "committing more crimes" than whites.

No, CONVICTIONS are higher. Not conviction rates. Go find a stat that shows that of the crimes prosecuted against blacks compared to the crimes prosecuted against whites, a HIGHER PERCENTAGE of blacks are convicted than whites. I guarantee you won't find it because it's entirely false. Nothing more than a guilty white fantasy.

Secondly, considering they've been forced into ghettos and poverty stricken areas for most of their history since being liberated, of course crime would be more prevalent there. You'll also notice that the Bureau of Justice has shown that the majority of homicides are committed against ones own race. With 94% of all homicides where the victim was black being caused by another black man. Once more, showing that this is constrained almost entirely to the ghettos and is predominantly motivated by the extreme poverty the african american community has found itself in.

The difference is that your argument ignores any and all context. Instead just going to say "BLACKS COMMIT MORE CRIMES! HA!" It would make sense to say the poverty stricken commit more crimes, look at poverty statistics, and then compare that to the crime rate. For example, poverty among blacks is far higher than their white counterparts.

So all of these rapes and murders and robberies are justified? It's not the fault of the individual but the circumstances they find themselves in? To say that it's not their responsibility is actually, genuinely racist. It's white superiority that allows you to make excuses for them and say they have no control of themselves. That their actions are simply a product of what white people do. It's an utterly ridiculous and condescending idea.

If you can make that argument, then don't be surprised when someone brings up black culture perpetuating crime. Or the lack of fathers in black families. Or the idea of no snitching and never cooperating with the police. I won't but it's the same argument you're making from the other side.

Personally, I think people make their own choices in life and if someone decides to willfully commit murder I'm not going to write it off as a result of poverty or culture.

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/

You'll also note that, while blacks have a high poverty rate hispanics have one slightly similar. Looking further into that it can be discovered that, while both are poverty stricken, blacks actually have a higher unemployment rate overall.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpsee_e16.htm

I'd almost think you were trying to make my argument for me. In one moment you say the crimerate among blacks is a result of poverty, then you say hispanics have similar poverty rates.

Are hispanics commiting 50% of the murders? 40% of the rapes? 40% of assaults? 60% of robberies? 40% of vehicle thefts?

No?

How are they managing that if they're only a product of poverty and the conditions the white man has made for them? Perhaps we have some sort of free will after all.

Spoiler

"OH! BUT WAIT!" you may say "HE WAS TALKING ABOUT HISPANICS, NOT BLACKS. WHY DO YOU THINK HE SAID ILLEGAL SAVAGE?!" annnnnd here's where your own argument falls apart.

You're using the line of "logic" that he's only insulting the "blacks who attacked him" (even though we have little to no evidence of this "assault" taking place) he never once mentioned hispanics being involved in this. So. Why mention "illegal savage" mh? Or are you just going to say "YEAH WELL HE SAID SAVAGE, HE COULD MEAN BLACK, THUS MEANING HE IS STILL TALKING ABOUT THAT GROUP"?

The fact is this guy's simply a racist scumbag. It's a fact you most likely know and are trying to avoid. I don't know why, maybe you share his view on a few things, I don't particularly care. That isn't part of this discussion. So please. Do explain. Why would he mention "illegal savage" (an insult directed towards hispanics) if he is "only" talking about the blacks that attacked him. You must provide evidence to back this up. No "Well maybe there was a hispanic guy there?!" or any nonsense.

I think he was referring to illegal carrying, not illegal immigrants. If he was an "illegal immigrant" he would have shot her? It just doesn't make sense.

"animal & savage" were directed at people, like the one who attacked, who resort instantly to violence. It was far from a generalization.

From Anthony himself three hours ago.

 

[keserak]

-Snip-

I've already posted the definitions before, it's not my fault that you deny their existence. But I'm going to leave it at that, you're already using insults to try to argue your points so there really isn't any point in continuing.

Please. You lied about definitions and threw out passive-aggressive insults, then took your ball and went home when challenged on them. You still can't explain your mysterious definition of racism or the c-word (which, again, you censor while disputing its misogyny).

 

[Something Amyss]

Black people make up 13% of the population yet commit 50% of the homicides.

[citation needed]

Your need to be PC doesn't change facts.

Please don't lie about my needs.

Was he calling black people animals? Or calling black criminals animals? Or calling the specific black people who attacked him animals? You don't know, nor do you care. You only enjoy the witch hunt and context has never been necessary.

If you ignore most of his tweets, you might have a point. I think you're doing just that, too. Which makes lecturing me on context kind of ironic. No, completely ironic.

 

[Something Amyss]

This is from the cdc....

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/m6227a1f3.gif

You left the context out, so I had to look this up myself. Going by the data I could find, it appears that this data is for deaths, not perpetrators. Of course, that might not be right, but given the rest of your responses I would not be surprised if you used the same data and lef tout the context to paint a completely different picture.

This chart was clearly intended to be accompanied by text, since it's missing things you would see otherwise.

 

[IceForce]

How much mental gymnastics do you have to pull to call that not racist?

The mental gymnastics some people go through to defend this shit is hilarious.

You have to do some serious mental gymnastics to think he is referring to someone else besides black people.

The mental gymnastics people are going through to defend this guy is amazing.

I have to echo these sentiments.

Who knew we had so many talented gymnasts here on the Escapist forums.

 

[Dragonbums]

To be fair, the term "racist" has lost all meaning at this point.

To you perhaps, but to people of color? No. The term racist has not lost any meaning what so ever. And quite frankly your comment proves that.

Anyone who talks in any way negative about black people in general or a specific black person is likely to be called a racist.

No you don't. If you criticize Will Smith on legitimate grounds than nobody is going to call you a racist. You may be called a hater- but racist is not one of them.

I don't actually think he's a racist in the sense that he hates black people,

I'm sure he doesn't hate black people. That's why he calls us "savages" in his rant.

but he's very clear about his views regarding black people and their tendency to commit a disproportionate amount of crime.

This is the epitome of "I'm not a racist but ______". We tend to commit a disproportionate amount of crime? That's hilarious.

Remind me again- which race was it that got an entire nation hooked on Opium so they can get their supplies of herbal tea and then subsequently slaughtered them when they said enough was enough?

Which race decided it was a good idea to colonize half the world- and not only do that but to also destroy said culture, divide centuries old boundaries, and implement government structures that said people never adapted to that has caused infighting and violence to this very day all for their natural resources?

It surly wasn't black people. They haven't done anything on that scale for thousands of years. But yeah. we "tend to commit a disproportionate amount of crime."

I have no doubt that a lot of the people who like to feel superior when public figures say naughty words would definitely label him a racist though. Like in this case, for example.

Yeah, because the only people who are pissed off at his comments are those with mega egos. Not- you know, actual fucking black people.

 

[Dragonbums]

-snip-

Don't bother at this point. I'm actually amazed based on the tweets posted here alone that you have people trying to defend this guy as not really being a racist.

Just watch the fireworks.

 

[zumbledum]

ok hes sexist and racist. so what? bottom line is someone with the same rights and privileges as all of us just lost his job because he exercised his 1st amendment rights. As much as its easy to get on the side of attacking this person for being vile. we should be aware of the broader impact on personal freedoms. which in a post patriot act world should be ringing more alarm bells than it is.

 

[Dragonbums]

The word savage refers to a primitive being it has nothing to do with skin color.

Let's casually ignore the fact that the term primitive for the past 300 or so years has been used exclusively in reference to cultures that weren't as "refined", "civilized", and "advanced" as white society. It's been used to describe black culture and the people within it, middle east culture and the people within it, Asian culture and the people within it, and most remote island populations- which coincidentally happen to be black people 80% of the time.

The term savage has been used to describe colored people for a long damn time now. Rarely was it used for white society. In fact, the closest word to savage that's been used in reference to white society was Barbarians. And that was a term primarily used during the fucking Roman empire and a couple centuries after that.

 

[Dragonbums]

ok hes sexist and racist. so what? bottom line is someone with the same rights and privileges as all of us just lost his job because he exercised his 1st amendment rights. As much as its easy to get on the side of attacking this person for being vile. we should be aware of the broader impact on personal freedoms. which in a post patriot act world should be ringing more alarm bells than it is.

And it's a businesses' first amendment rights to fire somebody if what they say will cause them more trouble than profits.

I wonder, if you saw a store representative going on a tirade about how Hispanic people are nothing but job stealing slugs who leech off the government, and he inevitably gets fired, are you going to be in the forefront and say "He was just exercising his first amendemnt rights!"

 

[Dragonbums]

How much mental gymnastics do you have to pull to call that not racist?

The mental gymnastics some people go through to defend this shit is hilarious.

You have to do some serious mental gymnastics to think he is referring to someone else besides black people.

The mental gymnastics people are going through to defend this guy is amazing.

I have to echo these sentiments.

Who knew we had so many talented gymnasts here on the Escapist forums.

It's amazing to watch isn't it?

I think the best part about it is that I'm not even surprised which users are defending this guy. More power to them I suppose, but I'm actually legitimately surprised how much they will make their brains do backflips in trying to find any "loopholes" that will make this man not a racist.

 

[zumbledum]

ok hes sexist and racist. so what? bottom line is someone with the same rights and privileges as all of us just lost his job because he exercised his 1st amendment rights. As much as its easy to get on the side of attacking this person for being vile. we should be aware of the broader impact on personal freedoms. which in a post patriot act world should be ringing more alarm bells than it is.

And it's a businesses' first amendment rights to fire somebody if what they say will cause them more trouble than profits.

I wonder, if you saw a store representative going on a tirade about how Hispanic people are nothing but job stealing slugs who leech off the government, and he inevitably gets fired, are you going to be in the forefront and say "He was just exercising his first amendemnt rights!"

i am not sure what the difference is, would i be right in guessing in your example hes doing it at work? if thats the case then yes company is well within their rights to sack him. but in either case its still a simple case of free speech. and he is welcome to think and say what he pleases.

 

[Dragonbums]

ok hes sexist and racist. so what? bottom line is someone with the same rights and privileges as all of us just lost his job because he exercised his 1st amendment rights. As much as its easy to get on the side of attacking this person for being vile. we should be aware of the broader impact on personal freedoms. which in a post patriot act world should be ringing more alarm bells than it is.

And it's a businesses' first amendment rights to fire somebody if what they say will cause them more trouble than profits.

I wonder, if you saw a store representative going on a tirade about how Hispanic people are nothing but job stealing slugs who leech off the government, and he inevitably gets fired, are you going to be in the forefront and say "He was just exercising his first amendemnt rights!"

i am not sure what the difference is, would i be right in guessing in your example hes doing it at work? if thats the case then yes company is well within their rights to sack him. but in either case its still a simple case of free speech. and he is welcome to think and say what he pleases.

And as others have pointed out in this 4 pages worth of thread, he said it on his public twitter account. Where everyone can see. Including his fans, and those who listen to Sirius in general. What he says on Twitter represents the Sirius brand and Sirius has decided that he is not worth the effort and fired him.

It is not a simple case of free speech. He can say whatever the fuck he wants and he did. That doesn't mean he is free from consequence. In his case, his consequence was getting fired. He didn't get jailed. If he did get jailed then THAT would be a violation of free speech.

 

[zumbledum]

And as others have pointed out in this 4 pages worth of thread, he said it on his public twitter account. Where everyone can see. Including his fans, and those who listen to Sirius in general. What he says on Twitter represents the Sirius brand and Sirius has decided that he is not worth the effort and fired him.

It is not a simple case of free speech. He can say whatever the fuck he wants and he did. That doesn't mean he is free from consequence. In his case, his consequence was getting fired. He didn't get jailed. If he did get jailed then THAT would be a violation of free speech.

i agree with all but two points. i dont agree his public twitter is any different from his personal voice just because a lot of people see it doesnt change his rights. and i dont think the lesser degree of punishment (sacked vs jailed) justifies it.


but that was never my point i have no objection to the firm sacking him i have objection to the fact they had to. my issue is with the people that attacked him and made him toxic. ironically my problem is with intolerance.

 

[Dragonbums]

i dont agree his public twitter is any different from his personal voice

Yes it is. If you have a public twitter that is followed by thousands to possibly millions in representation of your personality on radio then you are held liable for anything you say on said account. If this was something he said in his personal twitter account among friends and family then you may of had a point.

just because a lot of people see it doesnt change his rights.

His rights were never violated to begin with.

i have objection to the fact they had to.

Sirius radio was never forced to fire him. They could of kept him on air. They (Sirius) decided on their own accord that he wasn't worth the trouble of keeping around. And considering the other personalities that they keep around, that's pretty telling of how much shit he got them into with his Twitter statement. Yet alone the fact that he apparently took pictures of someone without their consent, got caught doing it by said person, and clearly continued to take pictures of said women despite her obviously not wanting it, all so he can have a racist rant on Twitter with her face on it.

my issue is with the people that attacked him and made him toxic.

If someone was taking pictures of me in the middle of the night without consent and despite my continued insistence on not doing that takes more pictures anyway, fucking yest I would confront the person and slap the fuck out of him.
It's called fucking consent, and it's clear he had no respect for that. This is fucking New York. He shouldn't be surprised an iota that continuously doing something to piss people off will inevitably land him with a fist in his face.

ironically my problem is with intolerance.

So basically your saying she should of been a passive little meek that's okay with random strangers taking pictures of her without consent?