2-Year-Old Girl Ran Over by Van & Ignored by 18 Bystanders

Mark Clifton was right, it isn’t because of Chinese, it is because of the tomatoes.

Ninety-two point four per cent of juvenile delinquents have eaten tomatoes.

Eighty-seven point one per cent of the adult criminals in penitentiaries throughout the United State have eaten tomatoes.

Informers reliably inform that of all known American Communists, ninety-two point three per cent have eaten tomatoes.

Eighty-four per cent of all people killed in automobile accidents during the year 1954 had eaten tomatoes.

Those who object to singling out specific groups for statistical proofs require measurements within a total.

Of those people born before the year 1800, regardless of race, color, creed or caste, and known to have eaten tomatoes, there has been one hundred per cent mortality!

In spite of their dread addiction, a few tomato eaters born between 1800 and 1850 still manage to survive, but the clinical picture is poor—their bones are brittle, their movements feeble, their skin seamed and wrinkled, their eyesight failing, hair falling, and frequently they have lost all their teeth.

Those born between 1850 and 1900 number somewhat more survivors, but the overt signs of the addiction’s dread effects differ not in kind but only in degree of deterioration.

Prognostication is not hopeful.

Exhaustive experiment shows that when tomatoes are withheld from an addict, invariably his cravings will cause him to turn to substitutes—such as oranges, or steak and potatoes. If both tomatoes and all substitutes are persistently withheld—death invariably results within a short time!

The skeptic of apocryphal statistics, or the stubborn nonconformist who will not accept the clearly proved conclusions of others may conduct his own experiment.

Obtain two dozen tomatoes—they may actually be purchased within a block of some high schools, or discovered growing in a respected neighbor’s back yard!—crush them to a pulp in exactly the state they would have if introduced into the stomach, pour the vile juice and pulp into a bowl, and place a goldfish therein. Within minutes the goldfish will be dead!

Those who argue that what affects a goldfish might not apply to a human being may, at their own choice, wish to conduct a direct experiment by fully immersing a live human head* into the mixture for a full five minutes.

* It is suggested that best results will be obtained by using an experimental subject who is thoroughly familiar with and frequently uses the logic methods demonstrated herein, such as:

(a) The average politician. Extremely unavailable to the average citizen except during the short open season before election.

(b) The advertising copywriter. Extremely wary and hard to catch due to his experience with many lawsuits for fraudulant claims.

(c) The dedicated moralist. Extremely plentiful in supply, and the experimenter might even obtain a bounty on each from a grateful community.

The Dread Tomato Addiction
by Mark Clifton

Yes, it is irrational for someone to watch an incident like this where a bunch of individuals appear to ignore the little girls, and extrapolate that to an ENTIRE ethnic group. No, in order to make such irrational leaps, the racist thought must already be there. Furthermore, the posters about whom I am referring have *repeatedly* affirmed their racist remarks rather than doubling back to check them. That’s inexcusable.

You don’t consider a little girl being run over as “sad” and “regrettable”? That’s odd. Everything about the event was “sad” and “miserable”, from the way the girl died to the inaction of the passers-by.

Those legal terms define INTENT, and are not observations. Without knowing the intent of the involved persons’ actions, such legal terms cannot be properly applied. IF, as it’s been considered, that one of the drivers or passers-by did not realize that she was there, then *none* of those terms apply. The nature of the event, however, still holds true as observed.

Do explain how my words were misleading. I described how an event appeared. “Poor” was an apt description. “Shitty” is also acceptable.

Nobody asked you to deduce intent or context. you decided to because just like everyone else, you LOVE gossip. Everyone’s commentary as well as the accompanying article ought to be read in a critical light.

“Some people are just [racist]“. Uhm, good observation? Yes, some people are just racist, and they like to express their racism wherever they get an opportunity. Like on message boards; like on a message board concerning the death of this kid. Jsut because some people are “just [racist]” doesn’t mean I need to ignore and dance around it. Their prejudice throws their entire argument into question, just as it would in court. Moreover, as a voice against racist propaganda, I aim to deter the notion that racism is “normal” and “okay”.

I don’t see how there is any difference between defending a cultural tendency toward apathy and defending a cultural tendency toward racist hate speech. Maybe you do, but I really think you ought to re-examine the two issues.

You are inserting causality where it doesn’t belong. Just because you *notice* racist remarks more when discussing a “shocking” event, doesn’t mean that the shocking event *caused* the racism. The event was merely an outlet for preexisting racist thoughts to be expressed. Having observed certain posters over time, it’s pretty clear that they harbor a long-standing and determined racism.

Again, there is no connection with the shocking and emotional incident and the racist generalization that goes with it. A non-racist response, though equally emotional, would not assume that this only happens in China or that only Chinese are this heatless. Such an immediate leap can *only* be caused by ignorance and preexisting racism. It has already been shared how similar incidents happen all over the world, and *yet* the same posters continue to defend their racist remarks. Sorry to break it to you, man, but they haven’t been “shocked into racism”. They are spreading ignorance and hate even when they know better. That’s racist.

Even you should be keenly aware of the difference between a criticism and a self-criticism. Generalized comments about ones own culture demonstrate despair and a desire to reflect. Generalized comments about another culture usurps their voice in an attempt to patronize and exert power over. That’s the basic crust, and the nuances go on top.

Yes, most people agree that all people deserve better than what happened in the video, but I refuse to do as you do, and use that an an excuse to paint a large brush over all the racism and bigotry I see raising its ugly head here.

I’ll first deal with your claim of ‘personal attack’. Saying that everyone likes gossip, and including you among the “everyone” does not make for a personal attack. It doesn’t even make for an attack. If this is not what you are referring to, please guide me in the proper direction.

“Poor” is not a legal term. In this sense, you are correct. You are incorrect, however, if you are assuming that everyone here is speaking in a legal context. In this case, then, while it would be improper for *you* to use “poor” in your comment, it is perfectly fine and to my point that I used “poor” in my comment. Overall, though, since your gripe with the word “poor” was in RESPONSE to my usage, it is you who misinterpreted my post (or rather, just laid out your own agenda on top of mine and claimed be to be at fault).

Again with your “some”. You replied to *my* comment. *My* comment was directed at a very specific majority of repeat posters. That was MY point. If you decided to lay out your point that not everyone was that way, then you could have done better to imply it.

Just because someone over-reacted doesn’t make their racist remarks *not* racist. Maybe some people to reflect a little and realize that what they said was racist, but that doesn’t delete the racism from those words. As posters, we are all defined by our words. If someone posts one racist thing and leaves, then that poster is functionally racist, regardless of whatever else they do with their lives. That is why we have these conversations: to clarify and correct. I’ve read a good majority of these posts from the beginning, and VERY few of the posters of racist remarks have bothered to reflect on them/take them back. And every time, more and more posters will come on the board and post racist things. While it’s likely that they haven’t taken the time to read others’ comments and reflect, I hardly feel that laziness is an excuse to be racist.

I deduced your arguments from what you wrote and nothing more. As opposed to these people captured on video, people who post their commentary do so with the purpose of demonstrating their intent. If there is a miscommunication, it is either due to poor word choice or careless reading. Either way, all I have to go on is what you’ve actually written.

No, it doesn’t mean you are only allowed to criticize your own country, nation, ethnic subgroups whatever. What it means is that when you start criticizing others, you venture into vastly different territory with its own rules. It is up to every person to be aware of this, and it is what the entire field of “intercultural communication” is all about. As I said, the nuances go on top.

If you are not criticizing/defending others’ comments, then what was the purpose of your original reply? In any case, I cannot really see how you are tangibly doing anything to solve anything. This is a comment board, not a legislative or judicial committee. Everything that goes on here is gossip and postulation. I’d love to see how you personally do the girl any justice by postulating about the legal issues from miles away. Perhaps by “justice”, you mean honoring her memory by talking about the circumstances of her death? Perhaps I can buy that, but I’ve already written enough in this topic.

I try not to repeat what other have said (which is why I read everything first), and there have been many interesting things said. My goal in posting is to counter what I see as non-constructive emotional and racist ramblings that justify horrible statements while hiding behind a [submit somber adjective of your choice] death.

Really, I think that’s about it. I apologize if you felt that I personally attacked you, but I cannot see where I have done that. Gossip is gossip, and everyone does it.