Bostonist: What's Up With Blue Laws?

Josh

Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:55:53 -0500

For what it's worth, while I appreciate Ron's opinion, I would argue that Gothamist's Asian staff is irrelevant and that my post is unoffensive on its own merits. Conversely, if I had posted some overtly racist screed about Asians and their inability to conform their behavior to American standards (or whatever), I don't think Jen Chung's status as my internet-boss would (or should) save me. The point is, I didn't say that Asians are lawbreakers or America-haters as a matter of course. I said that Super 88 Markets broke a stupid law. If Whole Foods had done the same thing (as they initially planned to), I would have called them "America-hating scofflaws" and no one would have stepped up to say I was discriminating against people who charge too much for milk.

Ron Newman

Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:34:05 -0500

not to mention that if you go to the About Gothamist page, you'll see that three of the six people shown are Asian. So it's quite unlikely that any Bostonist contributor would post something that was deliberately offensive to Asians. I enjoy the somewhat sarcastic and snarky tone of some of the posts here.

Ron Newman

Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:29:29 -0500

Cynthia is taking much too seriously something that was obviously written as a joke.

Chris

Sun, 27 Nov 2005 14:34:41 -0500

The question appears to me to be one of likelihood--how likely it is that a reader will misinterpret this article to be Super 88 hating? With that in mind, several points bear attention. First, the title of this article is "What's Up With The Blue Laws?" Second, only one paragraph (albeit the first paragraph) mentions Super 88. If the focus is clearly on the Blue Laws, not on Super 88, I think the likelihood of misinterpretation is low. More importantly, the article should be placed in context. Bostonist.com runs satirical, pointed commentary on a variety of issues. Several posts focus generally on the enjoyable multiculturism of the city. For this particular post to be misconstrued as a xenophobic, fear mongering rant against Super 88 employees and shoppers, a reader would need to read it in isolation, which, at least to me, appears less likely than more likely. Sure it could be read by someone, somewhere as an attack on the Super 88 crew. So could a post on the best supermarket in town. But neither is likely enough to cause concern. Incidentally, I don't think many people in Boston are "xenaphobic." From what I understand of the Warrior Princess's following, she'd probably receive a warmer welcome here than most other places.

Josh

Sat, 26 Nov 2005 14:52:19 -0500

It's true that I'm being sarcastic, but the sarcasm doesn't have anything to do with their being Asian. It has to do with the fact that blue laws are silly. "America-hating," like "scofflaws" in this case, is simply a purposeful exaggeration - my intent in using it is to allude and make fun of the way that people sometimes label any lawbreaker or dissenter as anti-American. The fact is, Super 88 Markets did break the law, but what I want to say is that the law is dumb. I trust the readers to understand from the context that the sharp end of my sarcasm is pointed toward the law and the A.G., and not Asians. Cynthia raises a good point here, but I'm a little unwilling to accept the idea that a violation of a silly law by Asians can't be treated with the same sarcasm as a violation of the same law by any other group. Dear readers, what do you think?

Cynthia

Sat, 26 Nov 2005 12:21:23 -0500

I don't think you're aware of the subversive impact that your choice of words in this article could have on some of its readers and the Boston community. I assume (hope, perhaps naively) that you meant it to be funny. Your choice to use the phrase "those America-hating scofflaws at Super 88 Markets" is blatantly offensive. Super 88 is a successful Asian foods business whose customers include not only Asians, Asian-Americans, Caucasians, and a diverse group of shoppers from the surrounding community. Just because a business is run by Asians does not mean the owners are "America-hating." I understand that your piece is intended to be sarcastic- but it may take an intelligent reader to see it as such. Most people will probably just assume that you are labeling Asians as anti-American. At worst, someone reading the article WILL believe that Asians are anti-American because the Super 88 was open on a mainstream holiday. Sarcasm is fine, but not at the expense of people who are generally unrepresented in the media. It's especially not ok within our current, politically-divisive, xenaphobic environment. I expected better from Boston.