There's no point being an activist for any cause, because:
1. Activism now requires an infinitely regressive set of purity tests. You wear the entire uniform or GTFO.
2. If you are found wanting in the above tests, then you are worse than an active opponent.
3. Nothing you do is good enough to qualify you as an "ally", which is apparently itself now a bad word.
4. Some activists are inherently less equal than others.
5. Slurs are made by Bad People. "Jokes" are made by the Good People. They may appear to be slurs, but that's just your privilege talking.
There are a few benefits gained by avoiding activism:
1. You don't get a pat on the head and a condescending sneer from college students (I don't hate college students and in fact admire education, but I can see where the hate comes from), because your life experiences since the Johnson Administration are obviously useless in the face of a few humanities classes.
2. You don't have to change your entire language every 6 months to conform to the latest version of Correctness™.
3. You don't have to tolerate the very same slurs you'd never dish out.
4. You are actually allowed to smile and be happy occasionally.
5. No culture guardians rapping you on the forehead.
Now, none of this is to say you shouldn't CARE about things and maybe try to make things BETTER or IMPROVE the world around you. If you don't do these things, then you're basically wasting space. But to become an activist is to surrender your identity and your will to someone else's standard of what's right and what's not. And all you get out of it is a stupid Greenpeace tee shirt maybe, and the snickering and sneers of the people you foolishly "allied" with.
Fix shit. But do it on a personal level.
Fuck yes.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2012, 07:34:23 PM
Fix shit. But do it on a personal level.
Brushing with Troofpaste right here.
activism does seem awfully exhausting.
It's also worth considering activism, as a lifestyle falls prey to the same problems as the protest subculture - lots of noise, little in the way of victories, better at politicking amongst their own than using said methods against their purported political enemies.
If a military campaign were run the way some protest and activist groups are, their leaders would be hung for incompetence, and rightly so.
Quote from: Cain on November 28, 2012, 07:43:22 PM
It's also worth considering activism, as a lifestyle falls prey to the same problems as the protest subculture - lots of noise, little in the way of victories, better at politicking amongst their own than using said methods against their purported political enemies.
If a military campaign were run the way some protest and activist groups are, their leaders would be hung for incompetence, and rightly so.
Yep. The reward for being a successful (ie, "alpha") activist is that nobody listens to you anymore, because everyone gives up on trying to meet an unattainable, ever-shifting standard.
Because it really isn't about The Cause. It's about control. YOU must behave in accordance with MY ethics.
It's also about calling out relatively minor things (war bonnets) that may in fact be offensive or just plain silly, in order to avoid taking active steps to alleviate your own guilt (Repatriation is RIGHT, but will NEVER happen even partially. Outside of Canada.).
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 28, 2012, 07:43:07 PM
activism does seem awfully exhausting.
That's because it's a bunch of energy used to control members, rather than accomplish anything.
At least as far as I have seen. See: Occupy "general assemblies".
This pretty much sums up what I think.
I've seen recently with a friend what happens to a person when they get caught up in a cause/become an activist. They start seeing everything as an affront to whatever they're on about.
Quote from: Sita on November 28, 2012, 08:17:50 PM
This pretty much sums up what I think.
I've seen recently with a friend what happens to a person when they get caught up in a cause/become an activist. They start seeing everything as an affront to whatever they're on about.
Learned the rule at college. Plain and simple - activist = annoying wanker. Spent 3 years of my life there, surrounded by every dumbass crusader under the sun from class war thru all men are bastards to save the fucking whale. Never, in all that time, met an exception to the rule. This was good enough for me but thanks anyway, Roger for digging a bit deeper. It's interesting to examine the root causes of these phenomena from time to time.
You will call me a pedant and worse again, but, while I agree with the general gist of everything here, I think there is a misuse of the words "activism" and "activist" here. I am sensitive to this sort of issue because I grew up in a country where I had the opportunity to go to school with very large pictures of Marx (and his buddies, or fellow-triumvirates, as we thought of them in those days, Lenin and Engels), and where the society we lived in was routinely called "socialism" - when in fact it was nothing but. It was a sort of deeply corrupt, pervasively feudal planned-economy capitalism.
So I think what you are describing is why not to join the things that usually get called "activist organisations", but which are in fact mutual appreciation societies often with fairly rough initiation rites. These things are always like pyramid-schemes: they butress the egos (and often also the bank accounts) of the people forming the core at emotional (and often also financial) cost to the periphery.
But activism, I think, is an apt word to descibe something else. I think activism is first and foremost the name of a personal philosophy that is opposed to apathy and navel-gazing. Its core notion is that what you do, your activity, matters. I think sabotage, ridicule, memetic warefare, the sort of thing that quite a lot of PD seems to be about, spannering the works - that is what I think of when I think 'activism'.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2012, 07:34:23 PM
There's no point being an activist for any cause, because:
1. Activism now requires an infinitely regressive set of purity tests. You wear the entire uniform or GTFO.
2. If you are found wanting in the above tests, then you are worse than an active opponent.
3. Nothing you do is good enough to qualify you as an "ally", which is apparently itself now a bad word.
4. Some activists are inherently less equal than others.
5. Slurs are made by Bad People. "Jokes" are made by the Good People. They may appear to be slurs, but that's just your privilege talking.
There are a few benefits gained by avoiding activism:
1. You don't get a pat on the head and a condescending sneer from college students (I don't hate college students and in fact admire education, but I can see where the hate comes from), because your life experiences since the Johnson Administration are obviously useless in the face of a few humanities classes.
2. You don't have to change your entire language every 6 months to conform to the latest version of Correctness™.
3. You don't have to tolerate the very same slurs you'd never dish out.
4. You are actually allowed to smile and be happy occasionally.
5. No culture guardians rapping you on the forehead.
Now, none of this is to say you shouldn't CARE about things and maybe try to make things BETTER or IMPROVE the world around you. If you don't do these things, then you're basically wasting space. But to become an activist is to surrender your identity and your will to someone else's standard of what's right and what's not. And all you get out of it is a stupid Greenpeace tee shirt maybe, and the snickering and sneers of the people you foolishly "allied" with.
Fix shit. But do it on a personal level.
1. Bullshit.
2. Bullshit.
3. :roll: I said
I don't like the word. That has nothing to do with anyone else.
4. Bullshit.
5. What the fuck does that even mean?
1. Y'know, I'm in a shitty mood and should probably get off PD for the day before this turns into an argument, but I'd appreciate it if you'd stop taking passive aggressive swipes at me. If you're mad at me, please, talk to me directly.
2. See three above.
I don't especially like the word, even though I'm fully aware that LIKE-ing the word is the source of the problem and can be transferred to any other replacement.
3. Oh my god. Insulting individual behavior is not the same as slurring an entire group. Christ.
4. :kingmeh:
5. :kingmeh:
Oh, and I forgot (your pessimism, Roger, is contageous!): I actually think what we usually call "Good Deeds" (you know: being nice to people for no particular reason at all, helping with luggage, holding doors, providing information in a reasonable and understandable tone, toleration for minor mistakes that routinely happen to all of us, anyway, apologising easily and forgiving easily, praising the praiseworthy and raising a polite and respectful objection to the objectionable, suffering fools gladly - those are also pretty close to activism these days.
Quote from: holist on November 28, 2012, 09:09:14 PM
Oh, and I forgot (your pessimism, Roger, is contageous!): I actually think what we usually call "Good Deeds" (you know: being nice to people for no particular reason at all, helping with luggage, holding doors, providing information in a reasonable and understandable tone, toleration for minor mistakes that routinely happen to all of us, anyway, apologising easily and forgiving easily, praising the praiseworthy and raising a polite and respectful objection to the objectionable, suffering fools gladly - those are also pretty close to activism these days.
That's not activism, that's just being a decent fucking person. Activism is an 'ism'. It's assholes wearing teeshirts and getting right in everybody's face about whatever righteous bullshit they want to be seen to be crusading against. An irritating subgenus of attention whore whose only redeeming feature is that they're really easy to wind up into paroxysms of frothing indignant rage which can be hilarious if you're that kind of bored.
There is activism, and then there is Activism™
Activism™ is a handful of people fighting about who is standing where at the top of a pyramid.
At the top it gets hard to see those struggling at the bottom, the multitudes form a sea that's scary and gives you Vertigo.
Its easier to focus on those directly above and below you, zone in on those local differences.
Although to the desperate observer from the teeming masses below the difference is so small it's impossible to see, but its probably better not to worry too much about that.
i don't happen to agree with Garbo on the trigger topic at hand, but this now seems to be overstating things a good deal, and has gotten a bit caustic, imo.
Roger, no skin off my back and i'm not harping here.
Garbo, i'd just like to distance myself from any animosity since i posted here, but don't intend any offense.
You're fine, Ippy. :)
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 09:05:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2012, 07:34:23 PM
There's no point being an activist for any cause, because:
1. Activism now requires an infinitely regressive set of purity tests. You wear the entire uniform or GTFO.
2. If you are found wanting in the above tests, then you are worse than an active opponent.
3. Nothing you do is good enough to qualify you as an "ally", which is apparently itself now a bad word.
4. Some activists are inherently less equal than others.
5. Slurs are made by Bad People. "Jokes" are made by the Good People. They may appear to be slurs, but that's just your privilege talking.
There are a few benefits gained by avoiding activism:
1. You don't get a pat on the head and a condescending sneer from college students (I don't hate college students and in fact admire education, but I can see where the hate comes from), because your life experiences since the Johnson Administration are obviously useless in the face of a few humanities classes.
2. You don't have to change your entire language every 6 months to conform to the latest version of Correctness™.
3. You don't have to tolerate the very same slurs you'd never dish out.
4. You are actually allowed to smile and be happy occasionally.
5. No culture guardians rapping you on the forehead.
Now, none of this is to say you shouldn't CARE about things and maybe try to make things BETTER or IMPROVE the world around you. If you don't do these things, then you're basically wasting space. But to become an activist is to surrender your identity and your will to someone else's standard of what's right and what's not. And all you get out of it is a stupid Greenpeace tee shirt maybe, and the snickering and sneers of the people you foolishly "allied" with.
Fix shit. But do it on a personal level.
1. Bullshit.
2. Bullshit.
3. :roll: I said I don't like the word. That has nothing to do with anyone else.
4. Bullshit.
5. What the fuck does that even mean?
1. Y'know, I'm in a shitty mood and should probably get off PD for the day before this turns into an argument, but I'd appreciate it if you'd stop taking passive aggressive swipes at me. If you're mad at me, please, talk to me directly.
2. See three above. I don't especially like the word, even though I'm fully aware that LIKE-ing the word is the source of the problem and can be transferred to any other replacement.
3. Oh my god. Insulting individual behavior is not the same as slurring an entire group. Christ.
4. :kingmeh:
5. :kingmeh:
Would you like your goat back?
:regret:
:lulz: Asshole.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 28, 2012, 09:26:06 PM
i don't happen to agree with Garbo on the trigger topic at hand, but this now seems to be overstating things a good deal, and has gotten a bit caustic, imo.
Roger, no skin off my back and i'm not harping here.
Garbo, i'd just like to distance myself from any animosity since i posted here, but don't intend any offense.
BREAKING NEWS: ROGER IS CAUSTIC. :lulz:
Good God A'mighty, if someone here means to imply that I can't be a sarcastic prick now and again, I suggest you take your complaints to ECH, who is known far and wide as a font of sympathy, understanding, and a mighty fighter against the power.
Also, I'd like to issue a standing invitation for everyone - in this thread, this board, the internet, and in fact the entire world - to kiss my abrasive and scabby, diseased ass.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
TGRR,
The Source of All Your Troubles.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 09:40:43 PM
:lulz: Asshole.
GUILTY AS CHARGED.
:hammer:
:digtbk:
Comments later. Something is on fire in the lab, probably ought to go look.
:)
like i said, Roger, i wasn't harping.
i know what you are.
and i know why we have to keep you around.
hm... gives me an idea for a thread.
Quote from: holist on November 28, 2012, 08:58:23 PM
You will call me a pedant and worse again, but, while I agree with the general gist of everything here, I think there is a misuse of the words "activism" and "activist" here. I am sensitive to this sort of issue because I grew up in a country where I had the opportunity to go to school with very large pictures of Marx (and his buddies, or fellow-triumvirates, as we thought of them in those days, Lenin and Engels), and where the society we lived in was routinely called "socialism" - when in fact it was nothing but. It was a sort of deeply corrupt, pervasively feudal planned-economy capitalism.
So I think what you are describing is why not to join the things that usually get called "activist organisations", but which are in fact mutual appreciation societies often with fairly rough initiation rites. These things are always like pyramid-schemes: they butress the egos (and often also the bank accounts) of the people forming the core at emotional (and often also financial) cost to the periphery.
But activism, I think, is an apt word to descibe something else. I think activism is first and foremost the name of a personal philosophy that is opposed to apathy and navel-gazing. Its core notion is that what you do, your activity, matters. I think sabotage, ridicule, memetic warefare, the sort of thing that quite a lot of PD seems to be about, spannering the works - that is what I think of when I think 'activism'.
I've gotta agree with the polar bear, here.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 03:20:05 AM
Quote from: holist on November 28, 2012, 08:58:23 PM
You will call me a pedant and worse again, but, while I agree with the general gist of everything here, I think there is a misuse of the words "activism" and "activist" here. I am sensitive to this sort of issue because I grew up in a country where I had the opportunity to go to school with very large pictures of Marx (and his buddies, or fellow-triumvirates, as we thought of them in those days, Lenin and Engels), and where the society we lived in was routinely called "socialism" - when in fact it was nothing but. It was a sort of deeply corrupt, pervasively feudal planned-economy capitalism.
So I think what you are describing is why not to join the things that usually get called "activist organisations", but which are in fact mutual appreciation societies often with fairly rough initiation rites. These things are always like pyramid-schemes: they butress the egos (and often also the bank accounts) of the people forming the core at emotional (and often also financial) cost to the periphery.
But activism, I think, is an apt word to descibe something else. I think activism is first and foremost the name of a personal philosophy that is opposed to apathy and navel-gazing. Its core notion is that what you do, your activity, matters. I think sabotage, ridicule, memetic warefare, the sort of thing that quite a lot of PD seems to be about, spannering the works - that is what I think of when I think 'activism'.
I've gotta agree with the polar bear, here.
He's been like that all day. I think he's on drugs.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 29, 2012, 03:32:28 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 03:20:05 AM
Quote from: holist on November 28, 2012, 08:58:23 PM
You will call me a pedant and worse again, but, while I agree with the general gist of everything here, I think there is a misuse of the words "activism" and "activist" here. I am sensitive to this sort of issue because I grew up in a country where I had the opportunity to go to school with very large pictures of Marx (and his buddies, or fellow-triumvirates, as we thought of them in those days, Lenin and Engels), and where the society we lived in was routinely called "socialism" - when in fact it was nothing but. It was a sort of deeply corrupt, pervasively feudal planned-economy capitalism.
So I think what you are describing is why not to join the things that usually get called "activist organisations", but which are in fact mutual appreciation societies often with fairly rough initiation rites. These things are always like pyramid-schemes: they butress the egos (and often also the bank accounts) of the people forming the core at emotional (and often also financial) cost to the periphery.
But activism, I think, is an apt word to descibe something else. I think activism is first and foremost the name of a personal philosophy that is opposed to apathy and navel-gazing. Its core notion is that what you do, your activity, matters. I think sabotage, ridicule, memetic warefare, the sort of thing that quite a lot of PD seems to be about, spannering the works - that is what I think of when I think 'activism'.
I've gotta agree with the polar bear, here.
He's been like that all day. I think he's on drugs.
Something ain't right. I think someone replaced his CPU.
He's been right twice today.
Either he's not a total lost cause, or he's a human stopped clock.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 29, 2012, 05:30:05 AM
He's been right twice today.
Either he's not a total lost cause, or he's a human stopped clock.
Goddammit, I might have to reset my reality tunnel.
FUCK.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 05:32:21 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 29, 2012, 05:30:05 AM
He's been right twice today.
Either he's not a total lost cause, or he's a human stopped clock.
Goddammit, I might have to reset my reality tunnel.
FUCK.
No shit.
On the other hand, it's a good idea every now and again, anyway. :lulz:
(I'm always on drugs. Start with caffeine in the morning, and then take it from there.)
Quote from: holist on November 28, 2012, 08:58:23 PM
You will call me a pedant and worse again, but, while I agree with the general gist of everything here, I think there is a misuse of the words "activism" and "activist" here. I am sensitive to this sort of issue because I grew up in a country where I had the opportunity to go to school with very large pictures of Marx (and his buddies, or fellow-triumvirates, as we thought of them in those days, Lenin and Engels), and where the society we lived in was routinely called "socialism" - when in fact it was nothing but. It was a sort of deeply corrupt, pervasively feudal planned-economy capitalism.
So I think what you are describing is why not to join the things that usually get called "activist organisations", but which are in fact mutual appreciation societies often with fairly rough initiation rites. These things are always like pyramid-schemes: they butress the egos (and often also the bank accounts) of the people forming the core at emotional (and often also financial) cost to the periphery.
But activism, I think, is an apt word to descibe something else. I think activism is first and foremost the name of a personal philosophy that is opposed to apathy and navel-gazing. Its core notion is that what you do, your activity, matters. I think sabotage, ridicule, memetic warefare, the sort of thing that quite a lot of PD seems to be about, spannering the works - that is what I think of when I think 'activism'.
An excellent point! I would go as far as to say activism requires active thinking... not buying into some pre-built interpretation of Right and Wrong.
Quote from: holist on November 29, 2012, 06:19:27 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 05:32:21 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 29, 2012, 05:30:05 AM
He's been right twice today.
Either he's not a total lost cause, or he's a human stopped clock.
Goddammit, I might have to reset my reality tunnel.
FUCK.
No shit.
On the other hand, it's a good idea every now and again, anyway. :lulz:
(I'm always on drugs. Start with caffeine in the morning, and then take it from there.)
Maybe you can also reset yours and stop responding to everything I say as if I'm saying it in an angry, accusatory, or mocking tone.
I'm also gonna add that I think the rejection of activism is dumb. No activism = no change in society. Yes, there's a problem with assholes and snooty bastards in the activist community, but it serves an important purpose.
I mean, unless you want to tell me that MLK, Stephen Douglas, Susan B. Anthony and Estelle Griswold, Lucy and Albert Parsons, Harvey Milk and others should have shut the fuck and only tried to change things on a local level. :lulz: Changing things on the local level is important and the only way to make lasting change, but no activism = no change in law, in larger society, no attention on issues that need to be touched (which makes it harder for individuals to be aware of the issues they need to tackle in themselves). Individual change and activism have to come together because they re-enforce each other.
I refute the idea that the only way to accomplish anything in society is through activism, individuals challenge and change important aspects of our society considered standard or normal, pretty much constantly. Whereas activism, while important (I agree with you there), is often pure wankery. The noise to information ratio of a large portion of activism is stacked largely in favor of noise.
It's important, but it is certainly not the only way to do it.
I never said it was the only way. I EXPLICITLY said it wasn't. Just that it's the major source of change on a larger level, especially legally. Activists get shit into court (Estelle Griswold comes to mind, as does decades of black lawyers doing their part to get things sucessfully through courts) that creates the change in law. They bring attention to issues (AIDS activism, trans* activism, etc.).
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 29, 2012, 04:58:03 PMno activism = no change in law
The above effectively states activism is the only way to change law. But, if you don't actually mean that, then we agree.
Historically, that has been the case, Hoops. The kind of change activists fight for is frequently very, very hard to get. It takes decades of concerted effort, and who does the work but activists?
Quote from: Hoopla on November 29, 2012, 05:34:59 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 29, 2012, 04:58:03 PMno activism = no change in law
The above effectively states activism is the only way to change law. But, if you don't actually mean that, then we agree.
Can you name a few ways of changing the law that don't involve taking action to promote change?
I wonder if an activist is like a hipster in that it is a label that is generally applied from the outside and occasionally after the fact.
I don't even know what my point is right now. I'm a few stages away from random slaughter for no reason so my brain doesn't feel like it working.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 06:13:39 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 29, 2012, 05:34:59 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 29, 2012, 04:58:03 PMno activism = no change in law
The above effectively states activism is the only way to change law. But, if you don't actually mean that, then we agree.
Can you name a few ways of changing the law that don't involve taking action to promote change?
Actually getting into politics is a good start. Harvey Milk was an activist, but not
just an activist - he went farther. And I don't mean to sound like I am disparaging activism, I just think its not the only way.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 29, 2012, 04:58:03 PM
I'm also gonna add that I think the rejection of activism is dumb. No activism = no change in society.
Or maybe no activism = no easily garnered moral authority.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 29, 2012, 06:29:16 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 29, 2012, 04:58:03 PM
I'm also gonna add that I think the rejection of activism is dumb. No activism = no change in society.
Or maybe no activism = no easily garnered moral authority.
What?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 29, 2012, 06:29:16 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 29, 2012, 04:58:03 PM
I'm also gonna add that I think the rejection of activism is dumb. No activism = no change in society.
Or maybe no activism = no easily garnered moral authority.
Seems to me like you're redefining "activism" to mean only those obnoxious individuals whom you find repellent and offputting.
That's a lot like redefining certain other words, like "privileged white boy", to mean only those obnoxious individuals someone finds repellent or offputting.
It seems a little irrational to redefine a useful word that spans a wide range of possible behaviors to instead mean a very narrow set of hehaviors, and presume that everyone should follow your redefinition.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 06:34:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 29, 2012, 06:29:16 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 29, 2012, 04:58:03 PM
I'm also gonna add that I think the rejection of activism is dumb. No activism = no change in society.
Or maybe no activism = no easily garnered moral authority.
Seems to me like you're redefining "activism" to mean only those obnoxious individuals whom you find repellent and offputting.
That's a lot like redefining certain other words, like "privileged white boy", to mean only those obnoxious individuals someone finds repellent or offputting.
It seems a little irrational to redefine a useful word that spans a wide range of possible behaviors, and presume that everyone should follow your redefinition.
Naw. I just know how humans behave when they clump up into groups. Or even when they
potentially lump up into groups. The internal politics becomes more important than the original cause, and everyone spends all their time trying to out-pure each other.
And, as I said, if you AREN'T willing or able to pass every test, then you're worse than an active opponent..."Part of the problem".
Quote from: Hoopla on November 29, 2012, 06:25:46 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 06:13:39 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 29, 2012, 05:34:59 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 29, 2012, 04:58:03 PMno activism = no change in law
The above effectively states activism is the only way to change law. But, if you don't actually mean that, then we agree.
Can you name a few ways of changing the law that don't involve taking action to promote change?
Actually getting into politics is a good start. Harvey Milk was an activist, but not just an activist - he went farther. And I don't mean to sound like I am disparaging activism, I just think its not the only way.
I think that you may be using a fairly narrow definition of activism that doesn't include working for change from within the system. What do you mean by "he went farther"? In what ways was his "going farther" outside the scope of the definition of activism?
Do you think that Martin Luther King Jr. was, or was not, an activist?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 29, 2012, 06:37:53 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 06:34:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 29, 2012, 06:29:16 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 29, 2012, 04:58:03 PM
I'm also gonna add that I think the rejection of activism is dumb. No activism = no change in society.
Or maybe no activism = no easily garnered moral authority.
Seems to me like you're redefining "activism" to mean only those obnoxious individuals whom you find repellent and offputting.
That's a lot like redefining certain other words, like "privileged white boy", to mean only those obnoxious individuals someone finds repellent or offputting.
It seems a little irrational to redefine a useful word that spans a wide range of possible behaviors, and presume that everyone should follow your redefinition.
Naw. I just know how humans behave when they clump up into groups. Or even when they potentially lump up into groups. The internal politics becomes more important than the original cause, and everyone spends all their time trying to out-pure each other.
And, as I said, if you AREN'T willing or able to pass every test, then you're worse than an active opponent..."Part of the problem".
And who,
exactly, are you claiming does this? Do engineers do it? Oil workers? Retail workers? Scientists? Do I do it? Am I doing it right now?
Be specific, please.
if you have a problem with the way a specific person approaches an issue, my suggestion is to take it up with them specifically rather than lumping everyone who shares some values with that person into some lazy category and dismissing them all.
If I may, I think there may be a little conflation/confusion going on here with terminology. Typically, we would refer to effecting change within a system as Advocacy, not activism. So when I am meeting with stakeholders to try to advance policy change or reforms, I am engaging in advocacy, not activism. If I was in the street demonstrating or protesting a policy or policy change, then I'm an activist. And then of course when I go into State Senator Jones' office and tell him to vote no on marijuana legalization, I've become a lobbyist.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 06:43:28 PM
if you have a problem with the way a specific person approaches an issue, my suggestion is to take it up with them specifically rather than lumping everyone who shares some values with that person into some lazy category and dismissing them all.
I kind of did. Take a look at my first response to Garbo in this thread.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 06:39:42 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 29, 2012, 06:25:46 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 06:13:39 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 29, 2012, 05:34:59 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 29, 2012, 04:58:03 PMno activism = no change in law
The above effectively states activism is the only way to change law. But, if you don't actually mean that, then we agree.
Can you name a few ways of changing the law that don't involve taking action to promote change?
Actually getting into politics is a good start. Harvey Milk was an activist, but not just an activist - he went farther. And I don't mean to sound like I am disparaging activism, I just think its not the only way.
I think that you may be using a fairly narrow definition of activism that doesn't include working for change from within the system. What do you mean by "he went farther"? In what ways was his "going farther" outside the scope of the definition of activism?
Do you think that Martin Luther King Jr. was, or was not, an activist?
Milk went farther by running for City Supervisor office with the intent to get things changed, these actions were outside the scope of activism (as I, possibly mistakenly, see it) by his actively being within the democratic process to effect change.
So yes, possibly I am using a narrow definition of activism, I fully admit my thinking may be incorrect. Martin Luther King Jr was certainly an activist, as was Milk.
I like RWHN's distinction between advocate and activist.
It's an important distinction but it isn't to say one, on balance, is more important than the other.
However, there are different specific instances and situations where one is more important and MORE EFFECTIVE over another.
I mean, from personal experience, clearly the medical marijuana activists in Maine have been more effective than the substance abuse prevention advocates.
But, by that same token, the substance abuse prevention advocates in Maine have been more effective than the marijuana legalization activists. So far anyway. ;)
While I very much appreciate you making the important distinction between activists and advocates, perhaps you could shut the fuck up about the whole "legalizing marijuana" thing? Forever? Because it's obviously a cheap attempt to interject that shit in the hopes of railroading the current discussion into another shitfest and surely you're smart enough to use one of the MILLIONS of other examples/analogies available to you. Thanks in advance.
Chill dude, it was just an illustrative example.
c'mon, man.
yeah, it may be an applicable example, but seriously. you know what happens. we know you know. you know we know you know.
Quote from: Hoopla on November 29, 2012, 07:03:01 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 06:39:42 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 29, 2012, 06:25:46 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 06:13:39 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 29, 2012, 05:34:59 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 29, 2012, 04:58:03 PMno activism = no change in law
The above effectively states activism is the only way to change law. But, if you don't actually mean that, then we agree.
Can you name a few ways of changing the law that don't involve taking action to promote change?
Actually getting into politics is a good start. Harvey Milk was an activist, but not just an activist - he went farther. And I don't mean to sound like I am disparaging activism, I just think its not the only way.
I think that you may be using a fairly narrow definition of activism that doesn't include working for change from within the system. What do you mean by "he went farther"? In what ways was his "going farther" outside the scope of the definition of activism?
Do you think that Martin Luther King Jr. was, or was not, an activist?
Milk went farther by running for City Supervisor office with the intent to get things changed, these actions were outside the scope of activism (as I, possibly mistakenly, see it) by his actively being within the democratic process to effect change.
So yes, possibly I am using a narrow definition of activism, I fully admit my thinking may be incorrect. Martin Luther King Jr was certainly an activist, as was Milk.
Yes,I think your definition is a bit narrow. Most activism takes place within the strictures of the democratic process, like petitioning for a measure to be added to the ballot or protesting to try to have current laws enforced fairly, or even by running for office.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 29, 2012, 07:00:42 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 06:43:28 PM
if you have a problem with the way a specific person approaches an issue, my suggestion is to take it up with them specifically rather than lumping everyone who shares some values with that person into some lazy category and dismissing them all.
I kind of did. Take a look at my first response to Garbo in this thread.
OK so here:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 29, 2012, 06:29:16 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 29, 2012, 04:58:03 PM
I'm also gonna add that I think the rejection of activism is dumb. No activism = no change in society.
Or maybe no activism = no easily garnered moral authority.
Perhaps then did you mean "Or maybe no activism
for you = no easily garnered moral authority
for you"? Because it read as a general slam on all activists.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 29, 2012, 07:43:49 PM
I like RWHN's distinction between advocate and activist.
Many activists are advocates, many advocates are activists.
And the distinction between an advocate and a lobbyist mostly comes down to who's paying you, and for what.
This link might be helpful: http://www.dosomething.org/training/activismandadvocacy/actvism-vs-advocacy
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 29, 2012, 04:58:03 PM
I'm also gonna add that I think the rejection of activism is dumb. No activism = no change in society. Yes, there's a problem with assholes and snooty bastards in the activist community, but it serves an important purpose.
I mean, unless you want to tell me that MLK, Stephen Douglas, Susan B. Anthony and Estelle Griswold, Lucy and Albert Parsons, Harvey Milk and others should have shut the fuck and only tried to change things on a local level. :lulz: Changing things on the local level is important and the only way to make lasting change, but no activism = no change in law, in larger society, no attention on issues that need to be touched (which makes it harder for individuals to be aware of the issues they need to tackle in themselves). Individual change and activism have to come together because they re-enforce each other.
I don't dispute that. I don't think any of those people would have been sitting around on the internet telling people how wrong they are though.
A woman here was denied an abortion and died because of it, I didn't go telling pro lifers to change because the action doesn't yield a result. I believe that pressure should be applied where it can cause the most change, in this case contacting the legal representatives involved and reminding them hourly that people are unhappy.
Insidious issues like racism, sexism and so on are harder to attack head on but the action should be geared at achieving the desired result.
For instance I am less interested in reading about feminism here on PD then I would have been six months ago, and perhaps that was peoples goal, to present it as dreary hostile and a mess but I am however more interested and am involved with groups here in the city because the same material was presented to me
in a better, more involving fashion.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 04:16:39 PM
Quote from: holist on November 29, 2012, 06:19:27 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 05:32:21 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 29, 2012, 05:30:05 AM
He's been right twice today.
Either he's not a total lost cause, or he's a human stopped clock.
Goddammit, I might have to reset my reality tunnel.
FUCK.
No shit.
On the other hand, it's a good idea every now and again, anyway. :lulz:
(I'm always on drugs. Start with caffeine in the morning, and then take it from there.)
Maybe you can also reset yours and stop responding to everything I say as if I'm saying it in an angry, accusatory, or mocking tone.
But I already have! Stop responding to everything I say as if I'm misreading your tone and responding as if you had adopted an angry, accusatory or mocking tone! :lulz:
On the other hand: "someone must have replaced his CPU" ???
You have a way with unmocking gestures, lady. :)
Quote from: holist on November 29, 2012, 10:46:51 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 04:16:39 PM
Quote from: holist on November 29, 2012, 06:19:27 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 05:32:21 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 29, 2012, 05:30:05 AM
He's been right twice today.
Either he's not a total lost cause, or he's a human stopped clock.
Goddammit, I might have to reset my reality tunnel.
FUCK.
No shit.
On the other hand, it's a good idea every now and again, anyway. :lulz:
(I'm always on drugs. Start with caffeine in the morning, and then take it from there.)
Maybe you can also reset yours and stop responding to everything I say as if I'm saying it in an angry, accusatory, or mocking tone.
But I already have! Stop responding to everything I say as if I'm misreading your tone and responding as if you had adopted an angry, accusatory or mocking tone! :lulz:
On the other hand: "someone must have replaced his CPU" ???
You have a way with unmocking gestures, lady. :)
In that other thread you told me to stop insulting you. I wasn't insulting you.
I think you may have a problem with missing the nuances of communication, because "someone must have replaced his CPU" was a reference to my earlier insistence that you are a bot. Obviously, you are not a bot, and obviously, I am in agreement with you in this thread, so I am not sure why you think the CPU comment was intended to be insulting toward you, rather than poking fun at my own earlier statements.
I think I'll go back to ignoring you now, it's more pleasant.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 11:00:53 PM
Quote from: holist on November 29, 2012, 10:46:51 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 04:16:39 PM
Quote from: holist on November 29, 2012, 06:19:27 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 05:32:21 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 29, 2012, 05:30:05 AM
He's been right twice today.
Either he's not a total lost cause, or he's a human stopped clock.
Goddammit, I might have to reset my reality tunnel.
FUCK.
No shit.
On the other hand, it's a good idea every now and again, anyway. :lulz:
(I'm always on drugs. Start with caffeine in the morning, and then take it from there.)
Maybe you can also reset yours and stop responding to everything I say as if I'm saying it in an angry, accusatory, or mocking tone.
But I already have! Stop responding to everything I say as if I'm misreading your tone and responding as if you had adopted an angry, accusatory or mocking tone! :lulz:
On the other hand: "someone must have replaced his CPU" ???
You have a way with unmocking gestures, lady. :)
In that other thread you told me to stop insulting you. I wasn't insulting you.
I think you may have a problem with missing the nuances of communication, because "someone must have replaced his CPU" was a reference to my earlier insistence that you are a bot. Obviously, you are not a bot, and obviously, I am in agreement with you in this thread, so I am not sure why you think the CPU comment was intended to be insulting toward you, rather than poking fun at my own earlier statements.
I think I'll go back to ignoring you now, it's more pleasant.
Okay, sorry. I guess I can see how I could have been somewhat less paranoid. Onemorechance? Weeny little one? I'll try to behave! (You know I won't last!)
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 09:40:12 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 29, 2012, 07:43:49 PM
I like RWHN's distinction between advocate and activist.
Many activists are advocates, many advocates are activists.
And the distinction between an advocate and a lobbyist mostly comes down to who's paying you, and for what.
This link might be helpful: http://www.dosomething.org/training/activismandadvocacy/actvism-vs-advocacy (http://www.dosomething.org/training/activismandadvocacy/actvism-vs-advocacy)
Actually, who pays you determines whether or not you CAN lobby. Basically, lobbying is when all three of these elements exist together:
Contacting a covered official (member of legislative or executive branch or a government employee)
about a specific piece of legislation or a specific executive order
and telling them how they should vote/act.
So, technically, you can contact a legislator and tell them you think kicking puppies is awful and no one should ever vote for it ever. But because you aren't telling him to vote No on a specific bill that would legalize kicking puppies, you aren't lobbying, no matter who is paying you.
In that case you are an advocate.
You'd be an activist if you rallied a Million Puppy Walker march on Washington.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 29, 2012, 09:01:27 PM
c'mon, man.
yeah, it may be an applicable example, but seriously. you know what happens. we know you know. you know we know you know.
In my defense, I had just got off the phone chatting with someone about marijuana policy so it was fresh in my mind. Just pretend I said marshmallows instead. I mean, who could say no to Medical Marshmallows? I know I wouldn't.
Fair enough. :lulz:
Sorry I was so snappy about it.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 09:36:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 29, 2012, 07:00:42 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 06:43:28 PM
if you have a problem with the way a specific person approaches an issue, my suggestion is to take it up with them specifically rather than lumping everyone who shares some values with that person into some lazy category and dismissing them all.
I kind of did. Take a look at my first response to Garbo in this thread.
OK so here:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 29, 2012, 06:29:16 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 29, 2012, 04:58:03 PM
I'm also gonna add that I think the rejection of activism is dumb. No activism = no change in society.
Or maybe no activism = no easily garnered moral authority.
Perhaps then did you mean "Or maybe no activism for you = no easily garnered moral authority for you"? Because it read as a general slam on all activists.
I meant this one:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2012, 09:37:53 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 09:05:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2012, 07:34:23 PM
There's no point being an activist for any cause, because:
1. Activism now requires an infinitely regressive set of purity tests. You wear the entire uniform or GTFO.
2. If you are found wanting in the above tests, then you are worse than an active opponent.
3. Nothing you do is good enough to qualify you as an "ally", which is apparently itself now a bad word.
4. Some activists are inherently less equal than others.
5. Slurs are made by Bad People. "Jokes" are made by the Good People. They may appear to be slurs, but that's just your privilege talking.
There are a few benefits gained by avoiding activism:
1. You don't get a pat on the head and a condescending sneer from college students (I don't hate college students and in fact admire education, but I can see where the hate comes from), because your life experiences since the Johnson Administration are obviously useless in the face of a few humanities classes.
2. You don't have to change your entire language every 6 months to conform to the latest version of Correctness™.
3. You don't have to tolerate the very same slurs you'd never dish out.
4. You are actually allowed to smile and be happy occasionally.
5. No culture guardians rapping you on the forehead.
Now, none of this is to say you shouldn't CARE about things and maybe try to make things BETTER or IMPROVE the world around you. If you don't do these things, then you're basically wasting space. But to become an activist is to surrender your identity and your will to someone else's standard of what's right and what's not. And all you get out of it is a stupid Greenpeace tee shirt maybe, and the snickering and sneers of the people you foolishly "allied" with.
Fix shit. But do it on a personal level.
1. Bullshit.
2. Bullshit.
3. :roll: I said I don't like the word. That has nothing to do with anyone else.
4. Bullshit.
5. What the fuck does that even mean?
1. Y'know, I'm in a shitty mood and should probably get off PD for the day before this turns into an argument, but I'd appreciate it if you'd stop taking passive aggressive swipes at me. If you're mad at me, please, talk to me directly.
2. See three above. I don't especially like the word, even though I'm fully aware that LIKE-ing the word is the source of the problem and can be transferred to any other replacement.
3. Oh my god. Insulting individual behavior is not the same as slurring an entire group. Christ.
4. :kingmeh:
5. :kingmeh:
Would you like your goat back?
:regret:
And if writing out an entire full-pager thread just to yank someone's chain seems a little...excessive, then I invite you to consider what those fucking Scotsmen are up to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPedwnc5e_s&feature=related
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 02:58:28 AM
And if writing out an entire full-pager thread just to yank someone's chain seems a little...excessive, then I invite you to consider what those fucking Scotsmen are up to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPedwnc5e_s&feature=related
Oh. I just figured that after the reveal you would quit yanking if you didn't mean it.
I mean, every SINGLE time someone says "those stupid niggers... you know I don't mean you..." I still bristle a little. Even if they're just doing it to get someone else's goat.
I might be getting too serious for this place though.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 30, 2012, 04:45:51 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 02:58:28 AM
And if writing out an entire full-pager thread just to yank someone's chain seems a little...excessive, then I invite you to consider what those fucking Scotsmen are up to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPedwnc5e_s&feature=related
Oh. I just figured that after the reveal you would quit yanking if you didn't mean it.
I mean, every SINGLE time someone says "those stupid niggers... you know I don't mean you..." I still bristle a little. Even if they're just doing it to get someone else's goat.
I might be getting too serious for this place though.
Right. I won't joke anymore. My apologies.
I think that came off as snarky. Let me restate it:
Apparently, I have offended some people here recently. I am unsure whether or not I have actually been more crass than usual. I'm pretty sure I haven't. But the fact remains that I have offended people I respect, and I DO try to avoid repeating mistakes. So I'm gonna tone it down a bit.
Problem is, as the man said, "If I send away my devils then my angels may go, too". Thing is, I'm pretty sure all I HAVE is devils, one on either shoulder. One is named "Bad", and the other is named "Worse". Each of them has a big mallet, and they hit me upside the head when I see something that's laugh-worthy, or DUMB, or inhuman, or whatever. It is this continuous trauma to the skull that makes me pour out the horrible.
Either I've changed or other people have changed or maybe both. The gags I find funny are offensive and not funny to other people. But they're the only gags I know. I'm some sort of horrible anachronism that wanders around laughing at all the wrong things and at all the wrong jokes. I've always known this, but I never thought I was coming off as basically Lester Maddox talking about "niggers". Needless to say, this is very upsetting, and I don't mean "I am mad at the person that pointed this out", I mean "I am upset with my own behavior, and at not having seen what is apparently plain as day to other people."
That being said, since I cannot trust my own judgement as to what is funny and what is offensive, I'm going to have to stop laughing. My sincerest apologies to anyone I may have offended in this manner.
Dibs on taking control of the mind lazors!
Dibs on being LMNO's first sick-o phant!
I don't think I belong here, anymore.
Oh, come on, Roger. It was just a bit of fun.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 04:23:08 PM
That being said, since I cannot trust my own judgement as to what is funny and what is offensive, I'm going to have to stop laughing. My sincerest apologies to anyone I may have offended in this manner.
I'm always laughing at all the wrong things.
I have a very macabre sense of humor at times.
Never stop laughing, because let's face it what's entertaining to one is likely not to be to another. All you can do if you laugh at the wrong thing/time is apologize (if you are sincerely sorry) and move on, hopefully remembering not to laugh out loud about the same thing again.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 04:23:08 PM
Either I've changed or other people have changed or maybe both. The gags I find funny are offensive and not funny to other people. But they're the only gags I know. I'm some sort of horrible anachronism that wanders around laughing at all the wrong things and at all the wrong jokes. I've always known this, but I never thought I was coming off as basically Lester Maddox talking about "niggers". Needless to say, this is very upsetting, and I don't mean "I am mad at the person that pointed this out", I mean "I am upset with my own behavior, and at not having seen what is apparently plain as day to other people."
Well, for what it's worth, I don't think you came off that way, and I'm certainly not offended.
People are in a weird mood. You're bound to see some sore nerves. Doesn't mean everyone wants you to leave.
Dude, you know that's not true.
you're a large chunk of what this place is. you're part and parcel of why people come here.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 30, 2012, 04:38:58 PM
People are in a weird mood. You're bound to see some sore nerves. Doesn't mean everyone wants you to leave.
I never said anyone did. I said "I don't think I belong here anymore". I think I've become the person I always used to make fun of. Some horrible Lester Maddox clone. That's not Discordia.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 04:45:34 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 30, 2012, 04:38:58 PM
People are in a weird mood. You're bound to see some sore nerves. Doesn't mean everyone wants you to leave.
I never said anyone did. I said "I don't think I belong here anymore". I think I've become the person I always used to make fun of. Some horrible Lester Maddox clone. That's not Discordia.
WOW, you seem to have done the unexpected. And there was stupid me thinking I had you figured.
Well first of all, take deep breaths, it will pass.
Secondly, I wouldn't have figured horrible LEster Maddox clones who used to make fun of themselves but got tired of it are not welcome here. Hell, even I haven't been banned.
There's hope for you yet.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 04:23:08 PM
Either I've changed or other people have changed or maybe both. The gags I find funny are offensive and not funny to other people. But they're the only gags I know. I'm some sort of horrible anachronism that wanders around laughing at all the wrong things and at all the wrong jokes. I've always known this, but I never thought I was coming off as basically Lester Maddox talking about "niggers". Needless to say, this is very upsetting, and I don't mean "I am mad at the person that pointed this out", I mean "I am upset with my own behavior, and at not having seen what is apparently plain as day to other people."
Yeah, this is total bullshit. I haven't gotten a Maddox feel from you at all. Ever.
I think I know where you're coming from though. That awkward spot where you think everyone is just being overly sensitive or too PC. Then you stop and think," Shit, that's something Maddox would say." But you're not Maddoxing, Roger.
It's the fucking -isms, man. They put everyone in a weird spot. You can't mock the sillier elements of an -ism without dragging the genuinely good elements of the -ism into it. And in order to defend the genuinely good elements of the -ism you have to defend the sillier elements even if you don't agree with them. It's a giant clusterfuck. There's no way in hell there's
not going to be tons of collateral damage.
Quote from: holist on November 30, 2012, 05:11:25 PM
SNIP
... are not welcome here. Hell, even I haven't been banned.
protip: just because you haven't been banned, doesn't mean you are welcome here.
Quote from: Sita on November 30, 2012, 04:37:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 04:23:08 PM
That being said, since I cannot trust my own judgement as to what is funny and what is offensive, I'm going to have to stop laughing. My sincerest apologies to anyone I may have offended in this manner.
I'm always laughing at all the wrong things.
I have a very macabre sense of humor at times.
Never stop laughing, because let's face it what's entertaining to one is likely not to be to another. All you can do if you laugh at the wrong thing/time is apologize (if you are sincerely sorry) and move on, hopefully remembering not to laugh out loud about the same thing again.
This, and sometimes I end up laughing at horrible things just because well...look at how horrible it is! It certainly doesn't mean I can't understand the importance of serious things.
Just that if I had to stop laughing at everything and nothing, might just go mad.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 30, 2012, 06:02:51 PM
Quote from: holist on November 30, 2012, 05:11:25 PM
SNIP
... are not welcome here. Hell, even I haven't been banned.
protip: just because you haven't been banned, doesn't mean you are welcome here.
come off it
you got the means, you got the justification, what's stopping ya?
what's stopping you?
Also, unless I'm missing something, I don't see how pointing of the sillier/extreme parts of something - either by humor, snark or just straigh-forwardly = "herp derp, niggers is bad what with their fried chicken eating and womin rapin' ways"
Quote from: holist on November 30, 2012, 06:16:00 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 30, 2012, 06:02:51 PM
Quote from: holist on November 30, 2012, 05:11:25 PM
SNIP
... are not welcome here. Hell, even I haven't been banned.
protip: just because you haven't been banned, doesn't mean you are welcome here.
come off it
you got the means, you got the justification, what's stopping ya?
what's stopping you?
wut? i'm not a mod. i haven't the means, personally.
justification? the mods are very conservative with the ban hammer. few rules get it. social infractions just get social reactions.
what's stopping us as a community? tradition.
Quote from: Running From Ghosts on November 30, 2012, 05:38:57 PM
It's the fucking -isms, man. They put everyone in a weird spot. You can't mock the sillier elements of an -ism without dragging the genuinely good elements of the -ism into it. And in order to defend the genuinely good elements of the -ism you have to defend the sillier elements even if you don't agree with them. It's a giant clusterfuck. There's no way in hell there's not going to be tons of collateral damage.
This. Especially if it's generally considered an important, socially relevant ISM that could potentially make people better, rather than a stupid and irrational ISM that is difficult to defend.
Holist- do you want to be banned? Is that what youre trying to go for? Is that why youre being a dick to everyone? Is that why you have such a boner for roger? If you dont want to be here anymore just stop showing up.
Quote from: holist on November 30, 2012, 05:11:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 04:45:34 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 30, 2012, 04:38:58 PM
People are in a weird mood. You're bound to see some sore nerves. Doesn't mean everyone wants you to leave.
I never said anyone did. I said "I don't think I belong here anymore". I think I've become the person I always used to make fun of. Some horrible Lester Maddox clone. That's not Discordia.
WOW, you seem to have done the unexpected. And there was stupid me thinking I had you figured.
Well first of all, take deep breaths, it will pass.
Secondly, I wouldn't have figured horrible LEster Maddox clones who used to make fun of themselves but got tired of it are not welcome here. Hell, even I haven't been banned.
There's hope for you yet.
Heh. I didn't expect any class from you, and I was of course not disappointed.
I did, however, expect you to be called on mocking an apology from one member to another, and in this I
was disappointed. However, it at least shows me where I stand, and I guess I have you to thank for that. So thanks. Also, die of cancer.
But before you do, make sure to spread loads of your "wisdom" around, because that apparently is what is in demand.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 06:37:19 PM
Quote from: holist on November 30, 2012, 05:11:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 04:45:34 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 30, 2012, 04:38:58 PM
People are in a weird mood. You're bound to see some sore nerves. Doesn't mean everyone wants you to leave.
I never said anyone did. I said "I don't think I belong here anymore". I think I've become the person I always used to make fun of. Some horrible Lester Maddox clone. That's not Discordia.
WOW, you seem to have done the unexpected. And there was stupid me thinking I had you figured.
Well first of all, take deep breaths, it will pass.
Secondly, I wouldn't have figured horrible LEster Maddox clones who used to make fun of themselves but got tired of it are not welcome here. Hell, even I haven't been banned.
There's hope for you yet.
Heh. I didn't expect any class from you, and I was of course not disappointed.
I did, however, expect you to be called on mocking an apology from one member to another, and in this I was disappointed. However, it at least shows me where I stand, and I guess I have you to thank for that. So thanks. Also, die of cancer.
But before you do, make sure to spread loads of your "wisdom" around, because that apparently is what is in demand.
Unfair. Holist is getting reamed for other things he said before this (I assume this was a newer post, I personally have him on ignore).
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on November 30, 2012, 06:47:44 PM
Unfair.
Probably.
So is sticking up for folks, and then being left swaying in the breeze.
May I suggest a hat? I'm wearing one. It's made out of impact-resistant plastic.
Sorry roger- i thought i had called him out on it.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 30, 2012, 06:52:54 PM
Sorry roger- i thought i had called him out on it.
You called him out on wanting to be banned, as far as I can tell. That's also what Iptuous did.
And rightfully so.
But there's something apparently wrong with my head, because I figured the more egregious thing would have been the fact that he was attacking an honest apology and explanation, not that he commented that he hasn't been banned yet.
Must be me.
I did ask him is that why he has a boner for you. The fact that he attacked your apology just seems like something that he would do along with all of the other crap he does. I wasnt just covering this instance but rather why is he a dick to people in general and you specifically.
So heres the thing holist- ive noticed that both with me and roger that you like to take a swipe at people when theyre... I dont know the word. But you took the opportunity to take a swipe at my music for no reason while i was trying to figure out what to do about my blues. And then you take a swipe at roger when hes trying to figure out if his sense of humor still works here and such. Now yeah your kind of a dick so your going to swipe at people anyway. But can you just do us all a favor and butt the fuck out if someone is doing a bit of soul searching or legitimately trying to get some sort of understanding across?
You can still be a dick and not kick someone while theyre down.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 06:55:37 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 30, 2012, 06:52:54 PM
Sorry roger- i thought i had called him out on it.
You called him out on wanting to be banned, as far as I can tell. That's also what Iptuous did.
And rightfully so.
But there's something apparently wrong with my head, because I figured the more egregious thing would have been the fact that he was attacking an honest apology and explanation, not that he commented that he hasn't been banned yet.
Must be me.
shit no, man. i know full well that you can chew him up yourself. there's no need for you to apologize in the first place, from what i've seen. and there's no need for us to beat on some clinging irritant when you do. he's one of your people! :lol:
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 30, 2012, 07:08:27 PM
i know full well that you can chew him up yourself.
Yes, this is true. I never need backup of any kind, or any sort of idea that I'm not on my own when it comes to this sort of thing.
Carry on.
I've got the fucker on pledge, so... I stayed with that. I apologize if that gave me the appearance of not caring what he said to you. I do, that's why he's pledged.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 30, 2012, 07:07:30 PM
So heres the thing holist- ive noticed that both with me and roger that you like to take a swipe at people when theyre... I dont know the word. But you took the opportunity to take a swipe at my music for no reason while i was trying to figure out what to do about my blues. And then you take a swipe at roger when hes trying to figure out if his sense of humor still works here and such. Now yeah your kind of a dick so your going to swipe at people anyway. But can you just do us all a favor and butt the fuck out if someone is doing a bit of soul searching or legitimately trying to get some sort of understanding across?
You can still be a dick and not kick someone while theyre down.
I've been thinking about this, and my conclusion is this: Get mad at the sun for rising. Holist can't help being a vulture, it's his nature. It's not what he does, it's what he IS.
Youre right- i dont even recall the last time i said something to him. Hes probably a bully irl since that seems to be his mo.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 30, 2012, 07:28:44 PM
Youre right- i dont even recall the last time i said something to him. Hes probably a bully irl since that seems to be his mo.
He strikes me more as the perpetual victim of bullies, now with online anonymity, but you could be right.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 07:24:55 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 30, 2012, 07:07:30 PM
So heres the thing holist- ive noticed that both with me and roger that you like to take a swipe at people when theyre... I dont know the word. But you took the opportunity to take a swipe at my music for no reason while i was trying to figure out what to do about my blues. And then you take a swipe at roger when hes trying to figure out if his sense of humor still works here and such. Now yeah your kind of a dick so your going to swipe at people anyway. But can you just do us all a favor and butt the fuck out if someone is doing a bit of soul searching or legitimately trying to get some sort of understanding across?
You can still be a dick and not kick someone while theyre down.
I've been thinking about this, and my conclusion is this: Get mad at the sun for rising. Holist can't help being a vulture, it's his nature. It's not what he does, it's what he IS.
Another reason for the pledge.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 30, 2012, 07:32:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 07:24:55 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 30, 2012, 07:07:30 PM
So heres the thing holist- ive noticed that both with me and roger that you like to take a swipe at people when theyre... I dont know the word. But you took the opportunity to take a swipe at my music for no reason while i was trying to figure out what to do about my blues. And then you take a swipe at roger when hes trying to figure out if his sense of humor still works here and such. Now yeah your kind of a dick so your going to swipe at people anyway. But can you just do us all a favor and butt the fuck out if someone is doing a bit of soul searching or legitimately trying to get some sort of understanding across?
You can still be a dick and not kick someone while theyre down.
I've been thinking about this, and my conclusion is this: Get mad at the sun for rising. Holist can't help being a vulture, it's his nature. It's not what he does, it's what he IS.
Another reason for the pledge.
Sure. He's a bottom feeder, he doesn't mean much. He isn't the reason I was upset...Frankly, neither was the lack of response from the other board members.
Quote from: Hoopla on November 29, 2012, 06:25:46 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 06:13:39 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 29, 2012, 05:34:59 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 29, 2012, 04:58:03 PMno activism = no change in law
The above effectively states activism is the only way to change law. But, if you don't actually mean that, then we agree.
Can you name a few ways of changing the law that don't involve taking action to promote change?
Actually getting into politics is a good start. Harvey Milk was an activist, but not just an activist - he went farther. And I don't mean to sound like I am disparaging activism, I just think its not the only way.
:lulz: do you know why he was able to get into politics? Because, gay or not, he was a white man. I hate to drag this back into the privilege debate, but if a person doesn't have the ability to get INTO the system to change it - like women and PoC historically have not been able to - or not able to get into the system enough to make a difference (trans* people and the poor, for example), activism is the only hope. Make some goddamn noise in groups, refuse to sit down and shut up, and spread information -
that's how you make change if you don't have access.
American history would be
radically different without activism. Do you like the fact that the ladies in your life have rights? That black people don't have to step off the side walk to let white people pass anymore and that a good old fashioned fag drag gets extra sentencing? That you have an eight hour day, safe working environment, benefits, and so on? If so, thank an activist.
And I gotta note, one of the ways minorities can *get* into the system to change it is by making enough noise and drawing enough attention to their situation to make more people sympathetic. How do you do that? Activism.
Could be both really. Could have been bullied then was able to grow a moustache and became one himself.
sorry, Roger. it seems you're in a more precarious space than i figured. any offense from action or inaction was unintentional.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 30, 2012, 07:34:48 PM
sorry, Roger. it seems you're in a more precarious space than i figured. any offense from action or inaction was unintentional.
No worries.
But looking upthread, this is now about activism again, so I'm out of this thread entirely.
Sorry. I was gone for a day and I still think this a valid discussion.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 07:38:02 PM
Sorry. I was gone for a day and I still think this a valid discussion.
Carry on, by all means. I am not fit for this sort of thing. That's why I'm leaving instead of trying to re-derail it.
Garbo, it seems to me you're talking about someone who's primary goal is to change something in the system, and other people are talking about someone who's primary goal is to make sure those around them are towing the party line.
And some of us are saying that the former becomes the latter with alarming frequency and regularity.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 07:29:53 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 30, 2012, 07:28:44 PM
Youre right- i dont even recall the last time i said something to him. Hes probably a bully irl since that seems to be his mo.
He strikes me more as the perpetual victim of bullies, now with online anonymity, but you could be right.
A bit of both, likely. Often bullied, maybe when he was younger. And/or highly insecure with a persecution complex. The only way to set things right is to, naturally, try to stomp on those he perceives to be weaker or in a vunerable position. He is threatened by strong, intelligent personalities, such as Roger. He is threatened by people trying to pursue their desires and/or make something of their lives, such as Twid. He is threatened by the group dynamic between many people here (not to be confused with "group think") that he didn't automatically become a part of once he joined. So he must seek out weak points and jab at them because that is much easier than addressing any actual issues and WILL SHOW THOSE PEOPLE.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 30, 2012, 07:34:11 PM
Could be both really. Could have been bullied then was able to grow a moustache and became one himself.
Of course, Twid makes my point more succinctly while I am busy expending more words than holist is worth :wink:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 07:39:02 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 07:38:02 PM
Sorry. I was gone for a day and I still think this a valid discussion.
Carry on, by all means. I am not fit for this sort of thing. That's why I'm leaving instead of trying to re-derail it.
Who made that argument? It certainly wasn't me and I was looking forward to what you might say in response to what I'd like to think is a well thought out defense of my cultural appropriation argument.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 04:23:08 PM
I think that came off as snarky. Let me restate it:
Apparently, I have offended some people here recently. I am unsure whether or not I have actually been more crass than usual. I'm pretty sure I haven't. But the fact remains that I have offended people I respect, and I DO try to avoid repeating mistakes. So I'm gonna tone it down a bit.
Problem is, as the man said, "If I send away my devils then my angels may go, too". Thing is, I'm pretty sure all I HAVE is devils, one on either shoulder. One is named "Bad", and the other is named "Worse". Each of them has a big mallet, and they hit me upside the head when I see something that's laugh-worthy, or DUMB, or inhuman, or whatever. It is this continuous trauma to the skull that makes me pour out the horrible.
Either I've changed or other people have changed or maybe both. The gags I find funny are offensive and not funny to other people. But they're the only gags I know. I'm some sort of horrible anachronism that wanders around laughing at all the wrong things and at all the wrong jokes. I've always known this, but I never thought I was coming off as basically Lester Maddox talking about "niggers". Needless to say, this is very upsetting, and I don't mean "I am mad at the person that pointed this out", I mean "I am upset with my own behavior, and at not having seen what is apparently plain as day to other people."
That being said, since I cannot trust my own judgement as to what is funny and what is offensive, I'm going to have to stop laughing. My sincerest apologies to anyone I may have offended in this manner.
Uh, you haven't made any offensive jokes or whatever. My snarkiness was in response to what I perceived as passive aggressive swipes at me, and I frankly have enough passive aggressive people in my IRL life, so I got a little snappish.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 30, 2012, 07:41:06 PM
Garbo, it seems to me you're talking about someone who's primary goal is to change something in the system, and other people are talking about someone who's primary goal is to make sure those around them are towing the party line.
And some of us are saying that the former becomes the latter with alarming frequency and regularity.
Okay, that's a valid distinction. Activism with a small 'a' versus Activism with a capital A, yes? Because I whole heartedly believe in activism and will defend it, but mocking Activists, I can get behind.
Lol when at work i must post quickly and furtively.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 07:46:12 PM
Okay, that's a valid distinction. Activism with a small 'a' versus Activism with a capital A, yes? Because I whole heartedly believe in activism and will defend it, but mocking Activists, I can get behind.
It's kind of hard to take the abstract concept and remove it from the behavior of those implementing it.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 07:46:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 07:39:02 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 07:38:02 PM
Sorry. I was gone for a day and I still think this a valid discussion.
Carry on, by all means. I am not fit for this sort of thing. That's why I'm leaving instead of trying to re-derail it.
Who made that argument?
Um, I did. This sort of thing is either boring or funny, and if it's funny, I'm with you all the way, no matter how much you hate the idea of allies that aren't ideologically pure.
Problem: Laugher's busted. Everytime I think of something worth saying, I think back to the "niggers" thing Nigel brought up, and I cringe. Humor destroyed.
So I'm not saying I'm UNWORTHY of taking part in it, I'm saying I'm not FIT (ie, able) to contribute.
QuoteIt certainly wasn't me and I was looking forward to what you might say in response to what I'd like to think is a well thought out defense of my cultural appropriation argument.
See above. Plus, when it isn't funny, the whole being looked down on/Ivory tower privilege thing becomes intolerable.
So yeah, even if activism (trying to change something) is a good idea, when there's talk of rejecting people who want the same goal but doesn't have the same principles (the whole "ally" thing), the whole thing collapses.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 30, 2012, 07:48:53 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 07:46:12 PM
Okay, that's a valid distinction. Activism with a small 'a' versus Activism with a capital A, yes? Because I whole heartedly believe in activism and will defend it, but mocking Activists, I can get behind.
It's kind of hard to take the abstract concept and remove it from the behavior of those implementing it.
Why? I don't see that, really. A person can still support and make the argument while kicking the Activist off their high horse.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 07:50:33 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 07:46:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 07:39:02 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 07:38:02 PM
Sorry. I was gone for a day and I still think this a valid discussion.
Carry on, by all means. I am not fit for this sort of thing. That's why I'm leaving instead of trying to re-derail it.
Who made that argument?
Um, I did. This sort of thing is either boring or funny, and if it's funny, I'm with you all the way, no matter how much you hate the idea of allies that aren't ideologically pure.
Problem: Laugher's busted. Everytime I think of something worth saying, I think back to the "niggers" thing Nigel brought up, and I cringe. Humor destroyed.
So I'm not saying I'm UNWORTHY of taking part in it, I'm saying I'm not FIT (ie, able) to contribute.
QuoteIt certainly wasn't me and I was looking forward to what you might say in response to what I'd like to think is a well thought out defense of my cultural appropriation argument.
See above. Plus, when it isn't funny, the whole being looked down on/Ivory tower privilege thing becomes intolerable.
I'm really not sure where you're getting the idea that I don't want you as an ally if you're not ideologically pure.
Which thread is that in? I must have missed it.
The only response I have to that would drag us back into that debate, so I'm going to shut up.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 07:59:29 PM
I'm really not sure where you're getting the idea that I don't want you as an ally if you're not ideologically pure.
Which thread is that in? I must have missed it.
The only response I have to that would drag us back into that debate, so I'm going to shut up.
It was something about hating the word "allies" because it implies people who are in your estimation insufficiently committed.
No, they're people who are being bigots while clinging to sincere fictions. Treating gay men as accessories is not being an ally. It's not even tokenism, it's dehumanization. I thought you put it well when you called it "LIKE'ing". It's lipservice, not genuine belief. I object to lipservice, period.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 30, 2012, 07:52:44 PM
So yeah, even if activism (trying to change something) is a good idea, when there's talk of rejecting people who want the same goal but doesn't have the same principles (the whole "ally" thing), the whole thing collapses.
I really wish I hadn't about up my problem with LIKE allies. Apparently, commenting on my frustration with LIKEers was a bad idea.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 08:06:41 PM
No, they're people who are being bigots while clinging to sincere fictions. Treating gay men as accessories is not being an ally. It's not even tokenism, it's dehumanization. I thought you put it well when you called it "LIKE'ing". It's lipservice, not genuine belief. I object to lipservice, period.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 30, 2012, 07:52:44 PM
So yeah, even if activism (trying to change something) is a good idea, when there's talk of rejecting people who want the same goal but doesn't have the same principles (the whole "ally" thing), the whole thing collapses.
I really wish I hadn't about up my problem with LIKE allies. Apparently, commenting on my frustration with LIKEers was a bad idea.
As you pointed out to me, it's a fucked up world. Sometimes you have to decide between "bad" and "worse", if only in the short run. If people are LIKEing the cause, well, that's better than what they did to Matthew Shepard. Priorities can be kind of important, here.
Stop the arterial bleeding in the leg, THEN worry about the scratch on the forehead. Co-opt everyone you can, no matter how shallow they might be. Dragging them along given their tokenism may be distasteful in the extreme, but the only way you're going to improve them is by INCLUDING them and then EDUCATING them. Ostracizing them is more likely to get results you don't want. What's the old line? "I'd rather have them inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in."
Basically, you have to decide whether you are results-oriented, or religious.
I can cede that ground, but I hope you understand why I might be angry with LIKEers.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 04:35:49 PM
I don't think I belong here, anymore.
Put on your big boy pants, dude. This is not gonna be a good century for people who give up so easily. Besides, who gives a flying ratfuck if anyone is offended? IMO that's their fucking problem.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 08:29:34 PM
I can cede that ground, but I hope you understand why I might be angry with LIKEers.
Then you will have to be angry with me. I have other shit going on that curtails any ACTIVE participation in quite a few things. The best I can do is LIKE a couple of things SHARE a couple of things, and tell off people that I am forced to deal with for archaic or regressive thinking.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 08:29:34 PM
I can cede that ground, but I hope you understand why I might be angry with LIKEers.
I'm angry with half my crew, but I can't keep the plant running without them.
If you look at all the successful activists in the past, each and every one of them engaged in the politics of inclusion. How many of the Whites marching with MLK were there out of genuine belief? Most? Probably. All? Not a hope. And the people they REACHED were the apologists and the people with token Black friends (very popular fad in the 60s).
If all you had to deal with were the true believers, activism wouldn't be
necessary. So you have to engage in the difficult and somewhat disgusting effort of bringing the faddists and the apologists on board.
And THAT is the failure of modern activism that I was mocking in the OP. It's as bad as the right wing, at least as far as ideological tests go. And you'll notice that the right wing just got its ass stomped, and you'll also notice that Occupy died under its own weight.
You can indulge in self-righteous purity, or you can accomplish things. You have to decide.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 30, 2012, 08:31:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 04:35:49 PM
I don't think I belong here, anymore.
Put on your big boy pants, dude. This is not gonna be a good century for people who give up so easily. Besides, who gives a flying ratfuck if anyone is offended? IMO that's their fucking problem.
You leave me and my existential crisis alone.
:lulz:
Whoops. I guess she didn't want to hear that.
ETA: I think my laugher has an auto-reset.
ETA2: Yep. It's back. Only right now I'm feeling manipulated as hell, and more than a little pissed off.
Note to self: Don't let shit back up like that. It's bad for the toilet.
Quote from: American Jackal on November 30, 2012, 08:33:18 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 08:29:34 PM
I can cede that ground, but I hope you understand why I might be angry with LIKEers.
Then you will have to be angry with me. I have other shit going on that curtails any ACTIVE participation in quite a few things. The best I can do is LIKE a couple of things SHARE a couple of things, and tell off people that I am forced to deal with for archaic or regressive thinking.
That has nothing to do with LIKE'ing. LIKE'ing involves lipservice or problematic behavior of epic proportions and the following refusal to listen to the people you're dehumanizing. If you're doing what you can and telling people off when shit arises, that's perfect ally behavior. That's all most people can or have time to do.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 08:47:48 PM
Whoops. I guess she didn't want to hear that.
ETA: I think my laugher has an auto-reset.
ETA2: Yep. It's back. Only right now I'm feeling manipulated as hell, and more than a little pissed off.
Note to self: Don't let shit back up like that. It's bad for the toilet.
What are you talking about? I'm swapping back and forth between this and writing my defense/expansion of the CA argument I made the other day.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 08:35:06 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 08:29:34 PM
I can cede that ground, but I hope you understand why I might be angry with LIKEers.
I'm angry with half my crew, but I can't keep the plant running without them.
If you look at all the successful activists in the past, each and every one of them engaged in the politics of inclusion. How many of the Whites marching with MLK were there out of genuine belief? Most? Probably. All? Not a hope. And the people they REACHED were the apologists and the people with token Black friends (very popular fad in the 60s).
If all you had to deal with were the true believers, activism wouldn't be necessary. So you have to engage in the difficult and somewhat disgusting effort of bringing the faddists and the apologists on board.
And THAT is the failure of modern activism that I was mocking in the OP. It's as bad as the right wing, at least as far as ideological tests go. And you'll notice that the right wing just got its ass stomped, and you'll also notice that Occupy died under its own weight.
You can indulge in self-righteous purity, or you can accomplish things. You have to decide.
*sigh* I'm not arguing against the politics of inclusion. I never have. I've only expressed frustration with LIKE'ing and seriously problematic, asshole behavior amongst people who do want to help (remember when I said "genuine sentiment" on Wednesday?). I will work with them, but I will be frustrated when "oooh bisexual females are
hawt" comes up and anyone who tells me I'm not allowed to feel that way can fuck right the hell off - I will feel what I want, goddammit, and such emotions are fucking valid because they're dehumanizing me! If they refuse to listen when I explain why that's dehumanizing, I will still work with them, because I recognize we can't do as much apart as we can together, even if they're assholes, but I will be angry with them.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 10:08:25 PM
What are you talking about?
Not you.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 08:29:34 PM
*sigh* I'm not arguing against the politics of inclusion. I never have. I've only expressed frustration with LIKE'ing and seriously problematic, asshole behavior amongst people who do want to help (remember when I said "genuine sentiment" on Wednesday?). I will work with them, but I will be frustrated when "oooh bisexual females are hawt" comes up and anyone who tells me I'm not allowed to feel that way can fuck right the hell off - I will feel what I want, goddammit, and such emotions are fucking valid because they're dehumanizing me! If they refuse to listen when I explain why that's dehumanizing, I will still work with them, because I recognize we can't do as much apart as we can together, even if they're assholes, but I will be angry with them.
I don't see any argument with that. I would, however, suggest that you hit
them with that anger ("fuck you" is appropriate), and then hit them in the liberal guilt by telling them WHY. It works. Trust me.
See, it might be a coincidence of timing, but recently what I'm hearing from you and Pixie is how everyone's doin' it wrong.
And if it shows here, it sure as hell shows in meatspace, and that's not going to accomplish much other than to reinforce stereotypes in the po'bucker set.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 10:32:49 PM
See, it might be a coincidence of timing, but recently what I'm hearing from you and Pixie is how everyone's doin' it wrong.
And if it shows here, it sure as hell shows in meatspace, and that's not going to accomplish much other than to reinforce stereotypes in the po'bucker set.
In Pix's case, I believe she's talking about *one* person in particular. I was expressing frustration with a certain kind of behavior that, yes, a lot of people do. But not everyone and it wasn't meant to tar everyone who calls themselves an ally with the same icky brush.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 10:56:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 10:32:49 PM
See, it might be a coincidence of timing, but recently what I'm hearing from you and Pixie is how everyone's doin' it wrong.
And if it shows here, it sure as hell shows in meatspace, and that's not going to accomplish much other than to reinforce stereotypes in the po'bucker set.
In Pix's case, I believe she's talking about *one* person in particular. I was expressing frustration with a certain kind of behavior that, yes, a lot of people do. But not everyone and it wasn't meant to tar everyone who calls themselves an ally with the same icky brush.
When's the last time anyone had anything GOOD to say about their fellow activists?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 04:23:08 PM
I think that came off as snarky. Let me restate it:
Apparently, I have offended some people here recently. I am unsure whether or not I have actually been more crass than usual. I'm pretty sure I haven't. But the fact remains that I have offended people I respect, and I DO try to avoid repeating mistakes. So I'm gonna tone it down a bit.
Problem is, as the man said, "If I send away my devils then my angels may go, too". Thing is, I'm pretty sure all I HAVE is devils, one on either shoulder. One is named "Bad", and the other is named "Worse". Each of them has a big mallet, and they hit me upside the head when I see something that's laugh-worthy, or DUMB, or inhuman, or whatever. It is this continuous trauma to the skull that makes me pour out the horrible.
Either I've changed or other people have changed or maybe both. The gags I find funny are offensive and not funny to other people. But they're the only gags I know. I'm some sort of horrible anachronism that wanders around laughing at all the wrong things and at all the wrong jokes. I've always known this, but I never thought I was coming off as basically Lester Maddox talking about "niggers". Needless to say, this is very upsetting, and I don't mean "I am mad at the person that pointed this out", I mean "I am upset with my own behavior, and at not having seen what is apparently plain as day to other people."
That being said, since I cannot trust my own judgement as to what is funny and what is offensive, I'm going to have to stop laughing. My sincerest apologies to anyone I may have offended in this manner.
I think you're blowing things out of proportion a bit, honestly. It's really just that we've had this conversation before, and perhaps you're thinking something like "Why is she taking offense again? I've already said that I don't mean her" and I'm thinking "Why is he generalizing about that again? I've already told him that it's hard not to take it personally even when he tells me he doesn't mean me" and the fact is, no matter how many times you state that you don't mean me, it's still going to be hard not to take it personally when you make disparaging comments about something I identify with, whether it's activism, feminism, health science, or any other aspect of my personal identity.
Like we talked about in text earlier, it's a bit similar to your reaction to Pixie saying what she did about privileged white boys needing a good slap. She meant a particular person, but inadvertently included you and LMNO in her statement. I think it would be pretty hypocritical of me to say something to her about that, but not say anything when you do the same thing.
Maybe it isn't that you shouldn't joke anymore, but that I'm too serious to enjoy being here anymore. I think that jokes that generalize can be funny, but that just didn't register as a joke.
That said, I accept and appreciate your apology. I'm not mad, at all, and I hope you have no hard feelings either.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 30, 2012, 11:20:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 04:23:08 PM
I think that came off as snarky. Let me restate it:
Apparently, I have offended some people here recently. I am unsure whether or not I have actually been more crass than usual. I'm pretty sure I haven't. But the fact remains that I have offended people I respect, and I DO try to avoid repeating mistakes. So I'm gonna tone it down a bit.
Problem is, as the man said, "If I send away my devils then my angels may go, too". Thing is, I'm pretty sure all I HAVE is devils, one on either shoulder. One is named "Bad", and the other is named "Worse". Each of them has a big mallet, and they hit me upside the head when I see something that's laugh-worthy, or DUMB, or inhuman, or whatever. It is this continuous trauma to the skull that makes me pour out the horrible.
Either I've changed or other people have changed or maybe both. The gags I find funny are offensive and not funny to other people. But they're the only gags I know. I'm some sort of horrible anachronism that wanders around laughing at all the wrong things and at all the wrong jokes. I've always known this, but I never thought I was coming off as basically Lester Maddox talking about "niggers". Needless to say, this is very upsetting, and I don't mean "I am mad at the person that pointed this out", I mean "I am upset with my own behavior, and at not having seen what is apparently plain as day to other people."
That being said, since I cannot trust my own judgement as to what is funny and what is offensive, I'm going to have to stop laughing. My sincerest apologies to anyone I may have offended in this manner.
I think you're blowing things out of proportion a bit, honestly. It's really just that we've had this conversation before, and perhaps you're thinking something like "Why is she taking offense again? I've already said that I don't mean her" and I'm thinking "Why is he generalizing about that again? I've already told him that it's hard not to take it personally even when he tells me he doesn't mean me" and the fact is, no matter how many times you state that you don't mean me, it's still going to be hard not to take it personally when you make disparaging comments about something I identify with, whether it's activism, feminism, health science, or any other aspect of my personal identity.
Like we talked about in text earlier, it's a bit similar to your reaction to Pixie saying what she did about privileged white boys needing a good slap. She meant a particular person, but inadvertently included you and LMNO in her statement. I think it would be pretty hypocritical of me to say something to her about that, but not say anything when you do the same thing.
Maybe it isn't that you shouldn't joke anymore, but that I'm too serious to enjoy being here anymore. I think that jokes that generalize can be funny, but that just didn't register as a joke.
That said, I accept and appreciate your apology. I'm not mad, at all, and I hope you have no hard feelings either.
No hard feelings? Of course not.
Sincerely,
George Wallace
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 30, 2012, 06:02:51 PM
Quote from: holist on November 30, 2012, 05:11:25 PM
SNIP
... are not welcome here. Hell, even I haven't been banned.
protip: just because you haven't been banned, doesn't mean you are welcome here.
This.
There's a broad, broad gap between "throwing a guy out" and "making a guy welcome".
Mind the gap.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 30, 2012, 06:30:03 PM
Quote from: Running From Ghosts on November 30, 2012, 05:38:57 PM
It's the fucking -isms, man. They put everyone in a weird spot. You can't mock the sillier elements of an -ism without dragging the genuinely good elements of the -ism into it. And in order to defend the genuinely good elements of the -ism you have to defend the sillier elements even if you don't agree with them. It's a giant clusterfuck. There's no way in hell there's not going to be tons of collateral damage.
This. Especially if it's generally considered an important, socially relevant ISM that could potentially make people better, rather than a stupid and irrational ISM that is difficult to defend.
There's also, like, the idea of dispensing with the tidy box-o-matic "ism" category, and criticizing the behavior instead. It just requires a little more critical thinking and linguistic precision, which I am pretty certain almost everyone here is capable of. If I didn't think so, it probably wouldn't frustrate me so much when I see lazy categoristic shorthands that make facile generalizations.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 07:29:53 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 30, 2012, 07:28:44 PM
Youre right- i dont even recall the last time i said something to him. Hes probably a bully irl since that seems to be his mo.
He strikes me more as the perpetual victim of bullies, now with online anonymity, but you could be right.
No, I think he's a bully. You can tell by the pattern of who he picks on: women, and people who seem to feel down or at a disadvantage. There are a couple of people he conspicuously doesn't pick on, and the contrast is pretty stark. ECH, for example. But he's gone after me, Garbo, Freeky, Phox, Twid when Twid was feeling low, and you when you apologized, which makes sense if you consider that he apparently considers admitting (or even considering) that you might be wrong to be a sign of weakness.
Totally consistent with bully behavior.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 30, 2012, 07:41:06 PM
Garbo, it seems to me you're talking about someone who's primary goal is to change something in the system, and other people are talking about someone who's primary goal is to make sure those around them are towing the party line.
And some of us are saying that the former becomes the latter with alarming frequency and regularity.
That is very true. Thank you for actually naming the problem.
It's not activists, or activism. It's power trippers.
That's no surprise; they're everywhere.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 07:46:12 PM
Okay, that's a valid distinction. Activism with a small 'a' versus Activism with a capital A, yes? Because I whole heartedly believe in activism and will defend it, but mocking Activists, I can get behind.
No, that's still a lazy shorthand box you can categorize people into without having to think about it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 11:22:09 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 30, 2012, 11:20:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 04:23:08 PM
I think that came off as snarky. Let me restate it:
Apparently, I have offended some people here recently. I am unsure whether or not I have actually been more crass than usual. I'm pretty sure I haven't. But the fact remains that I have offended people I respect, and I DO try to avoid repeating mistakes. So I'm gonna tone it down a bit.
Problem is, as the man said, "If I send away my devils then my angels may go, too". Thing is, I'm pretty sure all I HAVE is devils, one on either shoulder. One is named "Bad", and the other is named "Worse". Each of them has a big mallet, and they hit me upside the head when I see something that's laugh-worthy, or DUMB, or inhuman, or whatever. It is this continuous trauma to the skull that makes me pour out the horrible.
Either I've changed or other people have changed or maybe both. The gags I find funny are offensive and not funny to other people. But they're the only gags I know. I'm some sort of horrible anachronism that wanders around laughing at all the wrong things and at all the wrong jokes. I've always known this, but I never thought I was coming off as basically Lester Maddox talking about "niggers". Needless to say, this is very upsetting, and I don't mean "I am mad at the person that pointed this out", I mean "I am upset with my own behavior, and at not having seen what is apparently plain as day to other people."
That being said, since I cannot trust my own judgement as to what is funny and what is offensive, I'm going to have to stop laughing. My sincerest apologies to anyone I may have offended in this manner.
I think you're blowing things out of proportion a bit, honestly. It's really just that we've had this conversation before, and perhaps you're thinking something like "Why is she taking offense again? I've already said that I don't mean her" and I'm thinking "Why is he generalizing about that again? I've already told him that it's hard not to take it personally even when he tells me he doesn't mean me" and the fact is, no matter how many times you state that you don't mean me, it's still going to be hard not to take it personally when you make disparaging comments about something I identify with, whether it's activism, feminism, health science, or any other aspect of my personal identity.
Like we talked about in text earlier, it's a bit similar to your reaction to Pixie saying what she did about privileged white boys needing a good slap. She meant a particular person, but inadvertently included you and LMNO in her statement. I think it would be pretty hypocritical of me to say something to her about that, but not say anything when you do the same thing.
Maybe it isn't that you shouldn't joke anymore, but that I'm too serious to enjoy being here anymore. I think that jokes that generalize can be funny, but that just didn't register as a joke.
That said, I accept and appreciate your apology. I'm not mad, at all, and I hope you have no hard feelings either.
No hard feelings? Of course not.
Sincerely,
George Wallace
I have no idea what that means. :|
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 11:19:54 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 10:56:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 10:32:49 PM
See, it might be a coincidence of timing, but recently what I'm hearing from you and Pixie is how everyone's doin' it wrong.
And if it shows here, it sure as hell shows in meatspace, and that's not going to accomplish much other than to reinforce stereotypes in the po'bucker set.
In Pix's case, I believe she's talking about *one* person in particular. I was expressing frustration with a certain kind of behavior that, yes, a lot of people do. But not everyone and it wasn't meant to tar everyone who calls themselves an ally with the same icky brush.
When's the last time anyone had anything GOOD to say about their fellow activists?
I rarely participate in actual activism (ocassional letters or phone calls, or donating what I can when I can; mostly I just stick to on the ground stuff), but me. I can link you to a couple people. They aren't perfect, of course, but a) don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, b) it's harder for privileged people to be good allies (we don't always see the issues as clearly or realize exactly how much of an asshole we're being, even when we're trying not to. This isn't a defect in us, it's a defect in a society that HAS privileged groups, and as little as we might like it, there's a limit to how much control we have over our cell).
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 30, 2012, 11:48:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 11:22:09 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 30, 2012, 11:20:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 04:23:08 PM
I think that came off as snarky. Let me restate it:
Apparently, I have offended some people here recently. I am unsure whether or not I have actually been more crass than usual. I'm pretty sure I haven't. But the fact remains that I have offended people I respect, and I DO try to avoid repeating mistakes. So I'm gonna tone it down a bit.
Problem is, as the man said, "If I send away my devils then my angels may go, too". Thing is, I'm pretty sure all I HAVE is devils, one on either shoulder. One is named "Bad", and the other is named "Worse". Each of them has a big mallet, and they hit me upside the head when I see something that's laugh-worthy, or DUMB, or inhuman, or whatever. It is this continuous trauma to the skull that makes me pour out the horrible.
Either I've changed or other people have changed or maybe both. The gags I find funny are offensive and not funny to other people. But they're the only gags I know. I'm some sort of horrible anachronism that wanders around laughing at all the wrong things and at all the wrong jokes. I've always known this, but I never thought I was coming off as basically Lester Maddox talking about "niggers". Needless to say, this is very upsetting, and I don't mean "I am mad at the person that pointed this out", I mean "I am upset with my own behavior, and at not having seen what is apparently plain as day to other people."
That being said, since I cannot trust my own judgement as to what is funny and what is offensive, I'm going to have to stop laughing. My sincerest apologies to anyone I may have offended in this manner.
I think you're blowing things out of proportion a bit, honestly. It's really just that we've had this conversation before, and perhaps you're thinking something like "Why is she taking offense again? I've already said that I don't mean her" and I'm thinking "Why is he generalizing about that again? I've already told him that it's hard not to take it personally even when he tells me he doesn't mean me" and the fact is, no matter how many times you state that you don't mean me, it's still going to be hard not to take it personally when you make disparaging comments about something I identify with, whether it's activism, feminism, health science, or any other aspect of my personal identity.
Like we talked about in text earlier, it's a bit similar to your reaction to Pixie saying what she did about privileged white boys needing a good slap. She meant a particular person, but inadvertently included you and LMNO in her statement. I think it would be pretty hypocritical of me to say something to her about that, but not say anything when you do the same thing.
Maybe it isn't that you shouldn't joke anymore, but that I'm too serious to enjoy being here anymore. I think that jokes that generalize can be funny, but that just didn't register as a joke.
That said, I accept and appreciate your apology. I'm not mad, at all, and I hope you have no hard feelings either.
No hard feelings? Of course not.
Sincerely,
George Wallace
I have no idea what that means. :|
Some guy that ran for president in 1972, on the Nazi screwhead ticket.
Because that is apparently what I am. If I disagree or yank on someone's chain, I am the next Lester Maddox, or Bull Daley or something. I spent the entire day in my office, sick to my stomach that anyone - you particularly - would think that of me. On the other hand, I had the refreshing experience of a panic attack, which I haven't had in 2.5 years, so I guess it wasn't a total wash. It's like hitting yourself in the junk with a hammer. It feels so good when it stops.
Then I realized that the comparison was ridiculous and unfair, a false equivalence that would rate a 10 if you'd gone straight for the Hitler reference. I also realized that it was an unbelievably shitty thing to say. It hurt, and it was meant to hurt.
Was it wrong for me to haul on Garbo's chain like that? Absolutely.
Was it wrong for you to say what you said? Damn right it was.
Am I angry? No. I'm not sure what I am.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 11:53:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 11:19:54 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 10:56:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 10:32:49 PM
See, it might be a coincidence of timing, but recently what I'm hearing from you and Pixie is how everyone's doin' it wrong.
And if it shows here, it sure as hell shows in meatspace, and that's not going to accomplish much other than to reinforce stereotypes in the po'bucker set.
In Pix's case, I believe she's talking about *one* person in particular. I was expressing frustration with a certain kind of behavior that, yes, a lot of people do. But not everyone and it wasn't meant to tar everyone who calls themselves an ally with the same icky brush.
When's the last time anyone had anything GOOD to say about their fellow activists?
I rarely participate in actual activism (ocassional letters or phone calls, or donating what I can when I can; mostly I just stick to on the ground stuff), but me. I can link you to a couple people. They aren't perfect, of course, but a) don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, b) it's harder for privileged people to be good allies (we don't always see the issues as clearly or realize exactly how much of an asshole we're being, even when we're trying not to. This isn't a defect in us, it's a defect in a society that HAS privileged groups, and as little as we might like it, there's a limit to how much control we have over our cell).
Uh, no, that's wrong. In fact, I would argue, you NEED some "privileged" people as allies, particularly "privileged" people who have sway, power, connections to help move the needle. I can think of movements to get poor veterans better access to services, if they didn't have "privileged" allies they wouldn't get anywhere. Someone needs to have that extra bit of muscle to get legislators to move.
You are totally misconstruing what I said.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 11:53:21 PM
b) it's harder for privileged people to be good allies
The problem is in your head, not theirs.
But it occurs to me that all these conversations have ever brought me is grief, so I'll leave it at that.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2012, 12:00:59 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 11:53:21 PM
b) it's harder for privileged people to be good allies
The problem is in your head, not theirs.
But it occurs to me that all these conversations have ever brought me is grief, so I'll leave it at that.
No, this is a fact, Roger. 100% fact. I have to work harder, pay more attention what I say and how I say it, because I'm white and middle class. End of story. Society brought me up a specific way (which is to look down on those "below" me, and I/we don't always realize that what we're saying is asshole-ish) and I have to be more aware because of it. This goes for any privileged person. We're needed, but we kind of have to be more aware of what we're saying and doing because of it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 11:57:25 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 30, 2012, 11:48:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 11:22:09 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 30, 2012, 11:20:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 04:23:08 PM
I think that came off as snarky. Let me restate it:
Apparently, I have offended some people here recently. I am unsure whether or not I have actually been more crass than usual. I'm pretty sure I haven't. But the fact remains that I have offended people I respect, and I DO try to avoid repeating mistakes. So I'm gonna tone it down a bit.
Problem is, as the man said, "If I send away my devils then my angels may go, too". Thing is, I'm pretty sure all I HAVE is devils, one on either shoulder. One is named "Bad", and the other is named "Worse". Each of them has a big mallet, and they hit me upside the head when I see something that's laugh-worthy, or DUMB, or inhuman, or whatever. It is this continuous trauma to the skull that makes me pour out the horrible.
Either I've changed or other people have changed or maybe both. The gags I find funny are offensive and not funny to other people. But they're the only gags I know. I'm some sort of horrible anachronism that wanders around laughing at all the wrong things and at all the wrong jokes. I've always known this, but I never thought I was coming off as basically Lester Maddox talking about "niggers". Needless to say, this is very upsetting, and I don't mean "I am mad at the person that pointed this out", I mean "I am upset with my own behavior, and at not having seen what is apparently plain as day to other people."
That being said, since I cannot trust my own judgement as to what is funny and what is offensive, I'm going to have to stop laughing. My sincerest apologies to anyone I may have offended in this manner.
I think you're blowing things out of proportion a bit, honestly. It's really just that we've had this conversation before, and perhaps you're thinking something like "Why is she taking offense again? I've already said that I don't mean her" and I'm thinking "Why is he generalizing about that again? I've already told him that it's hard not to take it personally even when he tells me he doesn't mean me" and the fact is, no matter how many times you state that you don't mean me, it's still going to be hard not to take it personally when you make disparaging comments about something I identify with, whether it's activism, feminism, health science, or any other aspect of my personal identity.
Like we talked about in text earlier, it's a bit similar to your reaction to Pixie saying what she did about privileged white boys needing a good slap. She meant a particular person, but inadvertently included you and LMNO in her statement. I think it would be pretty hypocritical of me to say something to her about that, but not say anything when you do the same thing.
Maybe it isn't that you shouldn't joke anymore, but that I'm too serious to enjoy being here anymore. I think that jokes that generalize can be funny, but that just didn't register as a joke.
That said, I accept and appreciate your apology. I'm not mad, at all, and I hope you have no hard feelings either.
No hard feelings? Of course not.
Sincerely,
George Wallace
I have no idea what that means. :|
Some guy that ran for president in 1972, on the Nazi screwhead ticket.
Because that is apparently what I am. If I disagree or yank on someone's chain, I am the next Lester Maddox, or Bull Daley or something. I spent the entire day in my office, sick to my stomach that anyone - you particularly - would think that of me. On the other hand, I had the refreshing experience of a panic attack, which I haven't had in 2.5 years, so I guess it wasn't a total wash. It's like hitting yourself in the junk with a hammer. It feels so good when it stops.
Then I realized that the comparison was ridiculous and unfair, a false equivalence that would rate a 10 if you'd gone straight for the Hitler reference. I also realized that it was an unbelievably shitty thing to say. It hurt, and it was meant to hurt.
Was it wrong for me to haul on Garbo's chain like that? Absolutely.
Was it wrong for you to say what you said? Damn right it was.
Am I angry? No. I'm not sure what I am.
It wasn't a comparison, it was an analogy, and the analogy, being an analogy, was not meant to be a direct comparison, but rather, something much stronger, so as to make the connection with why making shitty generalizations is hard not to take personally.
I don't have the energy or the inclination to participate in this meltdown. I'm not your enemy, I'm not trying to manipulate you, I'll still be your friend when you're done, and I won't hold it against you.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 12:05:17 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2012, 12:00:59 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 11:53:21 PM
b) it's harder for privileged people to be good allies
The problem is in your head, not theirs.
But it occurs to me that all these conversations have ever brought me is grief, so I'll leave it at that.
No, this is a fact, Roger. 100% fact. I have to work harder, pay more attention what I say and how I say it, because I'm white and middle class. End of story. Society brought me up a specific way (which is to look down on those "below" me, and I/we don't always realize that what we're saying is asshole-ish) and I have to be more aware because of it. This goes for any privileged person. We're needed, but we kind of have to be more aware of what we're saying and doing because of it.
Yeah? Then let's have a little perspective. The enemy is the spouse-abuser, the crooked cop, the sexist employer, or (for a uniquely monstrous example) this guy:
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/saudi-offers-castrated-african-slave-for-sale-on-facebook/
It is not some silly-ass punk White kid in dreds, it is not the dumbfuck who THINKS he's on the team but then makes some dumb fucking comment about bisexual women being hot, the privileged yutz who doesn't know any better. THESE people are your CONVERT POOL. Are they ignorant? Yes, they fucking are. Are they TEACHABLE? Yeah. But you have to go out and DO it, not badmouth them.
Talking trash is easy. Fixing shit is hard.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 12:07:02 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 11:57:25 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 30, 2012, 11:48:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 11:22:09 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 30, 2012, 11:20:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 04:23:08 PM
I think that came off as snarky. Let me restate it:
Apparently, I have offended some people here recently. I am unsure whether or not I have actually been more crass than usual. I'm pretty sure I haven't. But the fact remains that I have offended people I respect, and I DO try to avoid repeating mistakes. So I'm gonna tone it down a bit.
Problem is, as the man said, "If I send away my devils then my angels may go, too". Thing is, I'm pretty sure all I HAVE is devils, one on either shoulder. One is named "Bad", and the other is named "Worse". Each of them has a big mallet, and they hit me upside the head when I see something that's laugh-worthy, or DUMB, or inhuman, or whatever. It is this continuous trauma to the skull that makes me pour out the horrible.
Either I've changed or other people have changed or maybe both. The gags I find funny are offensive and not funny to other people. But they're the only gags I know. I'm some sort of horrible anachronism that wanders around laughing at all the wrong things and at all the wrong jokes. I've always known this, but I never thought I was coming off as basically Lester Maddox talking about "niggers". Needless to say, this is very upsetting, and I don't mean "I am mad at the person that pointed this out", I mean "I am upset with my own behavior, and at not having seen what is apparently plain as day to other people."
That being said, since I cannot trust my own judgement as to what is funny and what is offensive, I'm going to have to stop laughing. My sincerest apologies to anyone I may have offended in this manner.
I think you're blowing things out of proportion a bit, honestly. It's really just that we've had this conversation before, and perhaps you're thinking something like "Why is she taking offense again? I've already said that I don't mean her" and I'm thinking "Why is he generalizing about that again? I've already told him that it's hard not to take it personally even when he tells me he doesn't mean me" and the fact is, no matter how many times you state that you don't mean me, it's still going to be hard not to take it personally when you make disparaging comments about something I identify with, whether it's activism, feminism, health science, or any other aspect of my personal identity.
Like we talked about in text earlier, it's a bit similar to your reaction to Pixie saying what she did about privileged white boys needing a good slap. She meant a particular person, but inadvertently included you and LMNO in her statement. I think it would be pretty hypocritical of me to say something to her about that, but not say anything when you do the same thing.
Maybe it isn't that you shouldn't joke anymore, but that I'm too serious to enjoy being here anymore. I think that jokes that generalize can be funny, but that just didn't register as a joke.
That said, I accept and appreciate your apology. I'm not mad, at all, and I hope you have no hard feelings either.
No hard feelings? Of course not.
Sincerely,
George Wallace
I have no idea what that means. :|
Some guy that ran for president in 1972, on the Nazi screwhead ticket.
Because that is apparently what I am. If I disagree or yank on someone's chain, I am the next Lester Maddox, or Bull Daley or something. I spent the entire day in my office, sick to my stomach that anyone - you particularly - would think that of me. On the other hand, I had the refreshing experience of a panic attack, which I haven't had in 2.5 years, so I guess it wasn't a total wash. It's like hitting yourself in the junk with a hammer. It feels so good when it stops.
Then I realized that the comparison was ridiculous and unfair, a false equivalence that would rate a 10 if you'd gone straight for the Hitler reference. I also realized that it was an unbelievably shitty thing to say. It hurt, and it was meant to hurt.
Was it wrong for me to haul on Garbo's chain like that? Absolutely.
Was it wrong for you to say what you said? Damn right it was.
Am I angry? No. I'm not sure what I am.
It wasn't a comparison, it was an analogy, and the analogy, being an analogy, was not meant to be a direct comparison, but rather, something much stronger, so as to make the connection with why making shitty generalizations is hard not to take personally.
Okay.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 12:09:25 AM
I don't have the energy or the inclination to participate in this meltdown. I'm not your enemy, I'm not trying to manipulate you, I'll still be your friend when you're done, and I won't hold it against you.
And I'm still your friend. Just a little shell-shocked, is all.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 12:05:17 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2012, 12:00:59 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 11:53:21 PM
b) it's harder for privileged people to be good allies
The problem is in your head, not theirs.
But it occurs to me that all these conversations have ever brought me is grief, so I'll leave it at that.
No, this is a fact, Roger. 100% fact. I have to work harder, pay more attention what I say and how I say it, because I'm white and middle class. End of story. Society brought me up a specific way (which is to look down on those "below" me, and I/we don't always realize that what we're saying is asshole-ish) and I have to be more aware because of it. This goes for any privileged person. We're needed, but we kind of have to be more aware of what we're saying and doing because of it.
I don't have to work any harder, it's called not being an asshole. Obviously if I'm an ally to a woman's cause, for example, it really doesn't take any kind of mental gymnastics to remember that I'm not a woman and that my role isn't to represent whatever the women's issue is. It's my job to grease the wheels. It really doesn't take much to figure that out.
Today sucked. I'm gonna take my pills and go to bed.
G'night.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2012, 12:12:09 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 12:05:17 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2012, 12:00:59 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 11:53:21 PM
b) it's harder for privileged people to be good allies
The problem is in your head, not theirs.
But it occurs to me that all these conversations have ever brought me is grief, so I'll leave it at that.
No, this is a fact, Roger. 100% fact. I have to work harder, pay more attention what I say and how I say it, because I'm white and middle class. End of story. Society brought me up a specific way (which is to look down on those "below" me, and I/we don't always realize that what we're saying is asshole-ish) and I have to be more aware because of it. This goes for any privileged person. We're needed, but we kind of have to be more aware of what we're saying and doing because of it.
Yeah? Then let's have a little perspective. The enemy is the spouse-abuser, the crooked cop, the sexist employer, or (for a uniquely monstrous example) this guy:
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/saudi-offers-castrated-african-slave-for-sale-on-facebook/
It is not some silly-ass punk White kid in dreds, it is not the dumbfuck who THINKS he's on the team but then makes some dumb fucking comment about bisexual women being hot, the privileged yutz who doesn't know any better. THESE people are your CONVERT POOL. Are they ignorant? Yes, they fucking are. Are they TEACHABLE? Yeah. But you have to go out and DO it, not badmouth them.
Talking trash is easy. Fixing shit is hard.
That is not related at all to what I said. What I said is that it's harder, not that it makes the privileged automatically the enemy or unteachable. It just means we have more bad, self-serving signal to sort through (and it's harder for humans to get rid of what serves them, isn't it?) and it's difficult to write over those lessons we got growing up that we were Better Than Them. It can be done. It just takes a lot of effort.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 12:16:07 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 12:05:17 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2012, 12:00:59 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 11:53:21 PM
b) it's harder for privileged people to be good allies
The problem is in your head, not theirs.
But it occurs to me that all these conversations have ever brought me is grief, so I'll leave it at that.
No, this is a fact, Roger. 100% fact. I have to work harder, pay more attention what I say and how I say it, because I'm white and middle class. End of story. Society brought me up a specific way (which is to look down on those "below" me, and I/we don't always realize that what we're saying is asshole-ish) and I have to be more aware because of it. This goes for any privileged person. We're needed, but we kind of have to be more aware of what we're saying and doing because of it.
I don't have to work any harder, it's called not being an asshole. Obviously if I'm an ally to a woman's cause, for example, it really doesn't take any kind of mental gymnastics to remember that I'm not a woman and that my role isn't to represent whatever the women's issue is. It's my job to grease the wheels. It really doesn't take much to figure that out.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 12:16:07 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 12:05:17 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2012, 12:00:59 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 11:53:21 PM
b) it's harder for privileged people to be good allies
The problem is in your head, not theirs.
But it occurs to me that all these conversations have ever brought me is grief, so I'll leave it at that.
No, this is a fact, Roger. 100% fact. I have to work harder, pay more attention what I say and how I say it, because I'm white and middle class. End of story. Society brought me up a specific way (which is to look down on those "below" me, and I/we don't always realize that what we're saying is asshole-ish) and I have to be more aware because of it. This goes for any privileged person. We're needed, but we kind of have to be more aware of what we're saying and doing because of it.
I don't have to work any harder, it's called not being an asshole. Obviously if I'm an ally to a woman's cause, for example, it really doesn't take any kind of mental gymnastics to remember that I'm not a woman and that my role isn't to represent whatever the women's issue is. It's my job to grease the wheels. It really doesn't take much to figure that out.
Yes, yes you do have to work harder. There are things that privileged people were brought up to think of as normal and natural and are in fact symptoms of privilege and asshole moves all around - things we don't even connect to bigotry. And don't lie; you fuck up sometimes, even when you're trying not to be an asshole. I know I do ocassionally and I work fucking hard on this.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 12:12:22 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 12:00:48 AM
You are totally misconstruing what I said.
Am I? Please clarify.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 30, 2012, 11:58:49 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 11:53:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 11:19:54 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 10:56:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 10:32:49 PM
See, it might be a coincidence of timing, but recently what I'm hearing from you and Pixie is how everyone's doin' it wrong.
And if it shows here, it sure as hell shows in meatspace, and that's not going to accomplish much other than to reinforce stereotypes in the po'bucker set.
In Pix's case, I believe she's talking about *one* person in particular. I was expressing frustration with a certain kind of behavior that, yes, a lot of people do. But not everyone and it wasn't meant to tar everyone who calls themselves an ally with the same icky brush.
When's the last time anyone had anything GOOD to say about their fellow activists?
I rarely participate in actual activism (ocassional letters or phone calls, or donating what I can when I can; mostly I just stick to on the ground stuff), but me. I can link you to a couple people. They aren't perfect, of course, but a) don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, b) it's harder for privileged people to be good allies (we don't always see the issues as clearly or realize exactly how much of an asshole we're being, even when we're trying not to. This isn't a defect in us, it's a defect in a society that HAS privileged groups, and as little as we might like it, there's a limit to how much control we have over our cell).
Uh, no, that's wrong. In fact, I would argue, you NEED some "privileged" people as allies, particularly "privileged" people who have sway, power, connections to help move the needle. I can think of movements to get poor veterans better access to services, if they didn't have "privileged" allies they wouldn't get anywhere. Someone needs to have that extra bit of muscle to get legislators to move.
No where in my post did I EVER say allies weren't needed. Never, ever have I said that, in fact.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2012, 12:17:41 AM
Today sucked. I'm gonna take my pills and go to bed.
G'night.
Good night. Hope things are better tomorrow.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 12:57:40 AM
Yes, yes you do have to work harder. There are things that privileged people were brought up to think of as normal and natural and are in fact symptoms of privilege and asshole moves all around - things we don't even connect to bigotry.
Like what? Be more specific.
QuoteAnd don't lie; you fuck up sometimes, even when you're trying not to be an asshole. I know I do ocassionally and I work fucking hard on.
Uh, no, like I said if you aren't a self-absorbed asshole it isn't very difficult at all. Maybe I'm special or something, but I think many people who get involved in causes, and are really committed to change, tend to have that clarity of thought.
QuoteNo where in my post did I EVER say allies weren't needed. Never, ever have I said that, in fact.
No, you said "privileged" people couldn't be good allies, but you are horribly wrong about that. They are VITAL allies for the reasons I outlined. If you actually want to make change, you absolutely need people with some kind of power, pull, or sway. It is EXTREMELY, rare that you are going to move anything just with pure activism, with just people taking to the streets. At the end of the day, there still needs to be some politiking, and so you need to have "privileged" peole at your sight. Those are VERY good allies.
Stereotypes. Quiet little assumptions about what sort of people the underprivilveged are and why they're that way. What kind of people custom breakers are (promisicous women are bad people, people who have different values than the "mainstream" are bad/not as good as us), etc. Watch the way white women act around black men sometimes, see how many of them clutch their purses or switch shoulders to keep the purse away. If you were to ask them if they were racist, they'd probably say no and that they actively fight against it.They just don't realize they're doing it.
It's more complicated than that. They're hidden biases you don't necessarily think about (like the purse clutching). It takes active effort to pay attention to things like whether or not a privilege holding person is making eye contact or how they talk to the other person (I don't mean tone, necessarily, I mean mistakes and word choice. They change, depending on the type of under privileged person they're speaking to.).
Go take a couple of implicit association tests (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit). I doubt you'll come out with no biases showing (everyone does, pretty much).
No, I didn't. I said it was harder because it takes a lot of work to weed out those things. Stop putting words in my mouth, please.
But it isn't harder, at all, because as an ally they don't have the same role. Again, if you want your cause to actually result in change, you need people who have power, connections, sway, etc., and those people are usually going to be people who have what you would call privilege.
It seems like RWHN is talking about an ally as a promoter of a cause in practical/logistical terms ("the muscle of the operation"), whereas Garbo is talking about an ally as a person who truly understands the cause, and subsequently works to improve themselves and their behavior based on that understanding.
Both are people working to forward the cause, but each definition of ally has different conditions.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2012, 12:12:09 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 12:05:17 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2012, 12:00:59 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 11:53:21 PM
b) it's harder for privileged people to be good allies
The problem is in your head, not theirs.
But it occurs to me that all these conversations have ever brought me is grief, so I'll leave it at that.
No, this is a fact, Roger. 100% fact. I have to work harder, pay more attention what I say and how I say it, because I'm white and middle class. End of story. Society brought me up a specific way (which is to look down on those "below" me, and I/we don't always realize that what we're saying is asshole-ish) and I have to be more aware because of it. This goes for any privileged person. We're needed, but we kind of have to be more aware of what we're saying and doing because of it.
Yeah? Then let's have a little perspective. The enemy is the spouse-abuser, the crooked cop, the sexist employer, or (for a uniquely monstrous example) this guy:
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/saudi-offers-castrated-african-slave-for-sale-on-facebook/
It is not some silly-ass punk White kid in dreds, it is not the dumbfuck who THINKS he's on the team but then makes some dumb fucking comment about bisexual women being hot, the privileged yutz who doesn't know any better. THESE people are your CONVERT POOL. Are they ignorant? Yes, they fucking are. Are they TEACHABLE? Yeah. But you have to go out and DO it, not badmouth them.
Talking trash is easy. Fixing shit is hard.
Post of the thread right there.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 12:57:40 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2012, 12:12:09 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 12:05:17 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2012, 12:00:59 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 11:53:21 PM
b) it's harder for privileged people to be good allies
The problem is in your head, not theirs.
But it occurs to me that all these conversations have ever brought me is grief, so I'll leave it at that.
No, this is a fact, Roger. 100% fact. I have to work harder, pay more attention what I say and how I say it, because I'm white and middle class. End of story. Society brought me up a specific way (which is to look down on those "below" me, and I/we don't always realize that what we're saying is asshole-ish) and I have to be more aware because of it. This goes for any privileged person. We're needed, but we kind of have to be more aware of what we're saying and doing because of it.
Yeah? Then let's have a little perspective. The enemy is the spouse-abuser, the crooked cop, the sexist employer, or (for a uniquely monstrous example) this guy:
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/saudi-offers-castrated-african-slave-for-sale-on-facebook/
It is not some silly-ass punk White kid in dreds, it is not the dumbfuck who THINKS he's on the team but then makes some dumb fucking comment about bisexual women being hot, the privileged yutz who doesn't know any better. THESE people are your CONVERT POOL. Are they ignorant? Yes, they fucking are. Are they TEACHABLE? Yeah. But you have to go out and DO it, not badmouth them.
Talking trash is easy. Fixing shit is hard.
That is not related at all to what I said. What I said is that it's harder, not that it makes the privileged automatically the enemy or unteachable. It just means we have more bad, self-serving signal to sort through (and it's harder for humans to get rid of what serves them, isn't it?) and it's difficult to write over those lessons we got growing up that we were Better Than Them. It can be done. It just takes a lot of effort.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 12:16:07 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 12:05:17 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2012, 12:00:59 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 11:53:21 PM
b) it's harder for privileged people to be good allies
The problem is in your head, not theirs.
But it occurs to me that all these conversations have ever brought me is grief, so I'll leave it at that.
No, this is a fact, Roger. 100% fact. I have to work harder, pay more attention what I say and how I say it, because I'm white and middle class. End of story. Society brought me up a specific way (which is to look down on those "below" me, and I/we don't always realize that what we're saying is asshole-ish) and I have to be more aware because of it. This goes for any privileged person. We're needed, but we kind of have to be more aware of what we're saying and doing because of it.
I don't have to work any harder, it's called not being an asshole. Obviously if I'm an ally to a woman's cause, for example, it really doesn't take any kind of mental gymnastics to remember that I'm not a woman and that my role isn't to represent whatever the women's issue is. It's my job to grease the wheels. It really doesn't take much to figure that out.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 12:16:07 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 12:05:17 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2012, 12:00:59 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 11:53:21 PM
b) it's harder for privileged people to be good allies
The problem is in your head, not theirs.
But it occurs to me that all these conversations have ever brought me is grief, so I'll leave it at that.
No, this is a fact, Roger. 100% fact. I have to work harder, pay more attention what I say and how I say it, because I'm white and middle class. End of story. Society brought me up a specific way (which is to look down on those "below" me, and I/we don't always realize that what we're saying is asshole-ish) and I have to be more aware because of it. This goes for any privileged person. We're needed, but we kind of have to be more aware of what we're saying and doing because of it.
I don't have to work any harder, it's called not being an asshole. Obviously if I'm an ally to a woman's cause, for example, it really doesn't take any kind of mental gymnastics to remember that I'm not a woman and that my role isn't to represent whatever the women's issue is. It's my job to grease the wheels. It really doesn't take much to figure that out.
Yes, yes you do have to work harder. There are things that privileged people were brought up to think of as normal and natural and are in fact symptoms of privilege and asshole moves all around - things we don't even connect to bigotry. And don't lie; you fuck up sometimes, even when you're trying not to be an asshole. I know I do ocassionally and I work fucking hard on this.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 12:12:22 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 12:00:48 AM
You are totally misconstruing what I said.
Am I? Please clarify.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 30, 2012, 11:58:49 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 11:53:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 11:19:54 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 30, 2012, 10:56:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 10:32:49 PM
See, it might be a coincidence of timing, but recently what I'm hearing from you and Pixie is how everyone's doin' it wrong.
And if it shows here, it sure as hell shows in meatspace, and that's not going to accomplish much other than to reinforce stereotypes in the po'bucker set.
In Pix's case, I believe she's talking about *one* person in particular. I was expressing frustration with a certain kind of behavior that, yes, a lot of people do. But not everyone and it wasn't meant to tar everyone who calls themselves an ally with the same icky brush.
When's the last time anyone had anything GOOD to say about their fellow activists?
I rarely participate in actual activism (ocassional letters or phone calls, or donating what I can when I can; mostly I just stick to on the ground stuff), but me. I can link you to a couple people. They aren't perfect, of course, but a) don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, b) it's harder for privileged people to be good allies (we don't always see the issues as clearly or realize exactly how much of an asshole we're being, even when we're trying not to. This isn't a defect in us, it's a defect in a society that HAS privileged groups, and as little as we might like it, there's a limit to how much control we have over our cell).
Uh, no, that's wrong. In fact, I would argue, you NEED some "privileged" people as allies, particularly "privileged" people who have sway, power, connections to help move the needle. I can think of movements to get poor veterans better access to services, if they didn't have "privileged" allies they wouldn't get anywhere. Someone needs to have that extra bit of muscle to get legislators to move.
No where in my post did I EVER say allies weren't needed. Never, ever have I said that, in fact.
You're speaking for an awful lot of people about something that you should really limit to speaking for yourself. I'll thank you not to tell me that I have to make a concerted effort to not be an inadvertent bigot or asshole.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 02:50:33 AM
Go take a couple of implicit association tests (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit).
Well, it turns out I have a preference for Other People over Arab Muslims (I'll have to warn the people who go to my mosque that they scare me, lol). But the good news is I got "Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between African American and European American." Oh, and apparently I think Native Americans are foreigners even though they're... Native... Americans...
Quote from: chimes on December 01, 2012, 03:24:02 AM
It seems like RWHN is talking about an ally as a promoter of a cause in practical/logistical terms ("the muscle of the operation"), whereas Garbo is talking about an ally as a person who truly understands the cause, and subsequently works to improve themselves and their behavior based on that understanding.
Both are people working to forward the cause, but each definition of ally has different conditions.
Eh, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive or distinct. Someone can be the muscle AND still have an in depth knowledge andunderstanding of the cause, they will certainly be more effective of they do. They maybe haven't LIVED it, but you don't have to have LIVED it to be an effective advocate, which is what we are really talking about here. That's what an advocate is, an ally, and they are almost always going to be someone of "privilege".
Quote from: Running From Ghosts on December 01, 2012, 03:39:18 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 02:50:33 AM
Go take a couple of implicit association tests (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit).
Well, it turns out I have a preference for Other People over Arab Muslims (I'll have to warn the people who go to my mosque that they scare me, lol). But the good news is I got "Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between African American and European American." Oh, and apparently I think Native Americans are foreigners even though they're... Native... Americans...
This simply means you are a seal.
Took the implicit association test.
No surprise to me that I view white people the least positively. Slightly surprised that it says I view Asians way more positively than black or hispanic people, who both rated about the same and still on the positive end of the scale, especially since I grew up in a place where black people were a VAST majority and the most dominant cultural influence in my life.
Quote from: Running From Ghosts on December 01, 2012, 03:39:18 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 02:50:33 AM
Go take a couple of implicit association tests (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit).
Well, it turns out I have a preference for Other People over Arab Muslims (I'll have to warn the people who go to my mosque that they scare me, lol). But the good news is I got "Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between African American and European American." Oh, and apparently I think Native Americans are foreigners even though they're... Native... Americans...
Interestingly, it told me that I have a strong preference for Black and Hispanic people, and a lower preference for White people, with Asians last.
Oh. Might be because ECHGF 2.0 is half Thai. :lulz:
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 05:22:40 AM
Interestingly, it told me that I have a strong preference for Black and Hispanic people, and a lower preference for White people, with Asians last.
You guys made me curious about the Asian test since I didn't do it before. I ended up with "Your data suggest little or no association between European American and Asian American with American and Foreign." And I have a moderate preference for dark skin over light skin. That Asian test was tough for me. It really hurt that the pictures were black-and-white, relatively low quality drawings. One of the drawings of an Asian male face was so ambiguous to me that I kept on hitting the wrong keys every time he popped up. But hey, it made me appreciate the old black-and-white photos in the Native American test. And here I thought some of
those were tough to make out.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 01, 2012, 05:26:10 AM
Oh. Might be because ECHGF 2.0 is half Thai. :lulz:
Makes sense to me. :lulz:
Quote from: Running From Ghosts on December 01, 2012, 07:41:23 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 05:22:40 AM
Interestingly, it told me that I have a strong preference for Black and Hispanic people, and a lower preference for White people, with Asians last.
You guys made me curious about the Asian test since I didn't do it before. I ended up with "Your data suggest little or no association between European American and Asian American with American and Foreign." And I have a moderate preference for dark skin over light skin. That Asian test was tough for me. It really hurt that the pictures were black-and-white, relatively low quality drawings. One of the drawings of an Asian male face was so ambiguous to me that I kept on hitting the wrong keys every time he popped up. But hey, it made me appreciate the old black-and-white photos in the Native American test. And here I thought some of those were tough to make out.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 01, 2012, 05:26:10 AM
Oh. Might be because ECHGF 2.0 is half Thai. :lulz:
Makes sense to me. :lulz:
I think I must have taken a totally different test.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 08:36:29 AM
Quote from: Running From Ghosts on December 01, 2012, 07:41:23 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 05:22:40 AM
Interestingly, it told me that I have a strong preference for Black and Hispanic people, and a lower preference for White people, with Asians last.
You guys made me curious about the Asian test since I didn't do it before. I ended up with "Your data suggest little or no association between European American and Asian American with American and Foreign." And I have a moderate preference for dark skin over light skin. That Asian test was tough for me. It really hurt that the pictures were black-and-white, relatively low quality drawings. One of the drawings of an Asian male face was so ambiguous to me that I kept on hitting the wrong keys every time he popped up. But hey, it made me appreciate the old black-and-white photos in the Native American test. And here I thought some of those were tough to make out.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 01, 2012, 05:26:10 AM
Oh. Might be because ECHGF 2.0 is half Thai. :lulz:
Makes sense to me. :lulz:
I think I must have taken a totally different test.
Ah. I didn't even see the four race test on the front page. I was taking the individual race demo tests. I was wondering what you and ECH were talking about when you were listing the four races in a specific order. That probably should've been my first clue I wasn't on the same page as you guys. Man I feel like an idiot. :oops:
Ok, just finished the
actual test.
(http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd233/AndrogynousRockStar/Races.jpg)
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 02:50:33 AM
Watch the way white women act around black men sometimes, see how many of them clutch their purses or switch shoulders to keep the purse away. If you were to ask them if they were racist, they'd probably say no and that they actively fight against it.They just don't realize they're doing it.
And what do they do around other people? How many of those women also react the same when any man comes near, or any person at all for that matter.
If you are only looking at one thing it's easy to find what you want.
Indeed, and I don't think being vigilant about one's personal safety should be construed as racism. And it sends mixed messages. For decades now, as a society, we've been trying to empower people, especially women, to take ownership of their personal safety. Encouraging women to enroll in self-defense courses for example. And now you want them to feel guilty and think twice about being cautious? Now, if they were yelling "rape" and calling the police every time they saw a black man, yeah, there are obviously some prejudice problems there and clearly racism at play. But I think you can take that too far when you scrutinize behavior to that degree.
Quote from: Sita on December 01, 2012, 01:54:03 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 02:50:33 AM
Watch the way white women act around black men sometimes, see how many of them clutch their purses or switch shoulders to keep the purse away. If you were to ask them if they were racist, they'd probably say no and that they actively fight against it.They just don't realize they're doing it.
And what do they do around other people? How many of those women also react the same when any man comes near, or any person at all for that matter.
If you are only looking at one thing it's easy to find what you want.
Uh, are you saying that black fear doesn't exist? :lol: :lol: :lol:
It's incredibly well-studied and well-documented. Even BLACK people are more afraid of Black men then of white men. It's an issue which suffuses our entire culture.
Wow, let's stick our heads in the sand and pretend that issues don't exist simply because we can justify them away if we don't look at the evidence.
Maybe we can also have a conversation about how equally qualified black men are totally employed at the same level and the same pay as white men, and black people with the same qualifications as white people are equally able to get home loans. Because that's a much nicer world THAT THE ONE WE ACTUALLY LIVE IN.
And there is not even any discrimination against Hispanics, anywhere. :lulz:
I hope nobody is actually suggesting that there aren't hella problems with how we deal with race in this society and the social and cultural issues that it causes, because that would be pretty dumb. Just to be clear, that is NOT the argument that I'm making.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 01, 2012, 04:59:27 PM
I hope nobody is actually suggesting that there aren't hella problems with how we deal with race in this society and the social and cultural issues that it causes, because that would be pretty dumb. Just to be clear, that is NOT the argument that I'm making.
Oh, I know you aren't. But those last couple comments above mine... wow. :lol:
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 04:48:29 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 01, 2012, 01:54:03 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 02:50:33 AM
Watch the way white women act around black men sometimes, see how many of them clutch their purses or switch shoulders to keep the purse away. If you were to ask them if they were racist, they'd probably say no and that they actively fight against it.They just don't realize they're doing it.
And what do they do around other people? How many of those women also react the same when any man comes near, or any person at all for that matter.
If you are only looking at one thing it's easy to find what you want.
Uh, are you saying that black fear doesn't exist? :lol: :lol: :lol:
It's incredibly well-studied and well-documented. Even BLACK people are more afraid of Black men then of white men. It's an issue which suffuses our entire culture.
Not at all. Just that you have to look and see if they react that way only with black people or with everyone.
I know full well that there is black (and other race) fear and prejudice out there. Wouldn't even try to pretend that there wasn't.
Nigel & Garbo: I'm sorry about my behavior yesterday. Having finally had some sleep, I'm more than a little mortified.
No apology necessary. Things get out of hand sometimes and misunderstandings happen. I'm sorry for not wording things better.
Quote from: Sita on December 01, 2012, 06:25:22 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 04:48:29 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 01, 2012, 01:54:03 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 02:50:33 AM
Watch the way white women act around black men sometimes, see how many of them clutch their purses or switch shoulders to keep the purse away. If you were to ask them if they were racist, they'd probably say no and that they actively fight against it.They just don't realize they're doing it.
And what do they do around other people? How many of those women also react the same when any man comes near, or any person at all for that matter.
If you are only looking at one thing it's easy to find what you want.
Uh, are you saying that black fear doesn't exist? :lol: :lol: :lol:
It's incredibly well-studied and well-documented. Even BLACK people are more afraid of Black men then of white men. It's an issue which suffuses our entire culture.
Not at all. Just that you have to look and see if they react that way only with black people or with everyone.
I know full well that there is black (and other race) fear and prejudice out there. Wouldn't even try to pretend that there wasn't.
Who is "they", and what is your point? That some people don't have the culturally ingrained negative reaction? OK. I don't disagree.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 06:58:13 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 01, 2012, 06:25:22 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 04:48:29 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 01, 2012, 01:54:03 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 02:50:33 AM
Watch the way white women act around black men sometimes, see how many of them clutch their purses or switch shoulders to keep the purse away. If you were to ask them if they were racist, they'd probably say no and that they actively fight against it.They just don't realize they're doing it.
And what do they do around other people? How many of those women also react the same when any man comes near, or any person at all for that matter.
If you are only looking at one thing it's easy to find what you want.
Uh, are you saying that black fear doesn't exist? :lol: :lol: :lol:
It's incredibly well-studied and well-documented. Even BLACK people are more afraid of Black men then of white men. It's an issue which suffuses our entire culture.
Not at all. Just that you have to look and see if they react that way only with black people or with everyone.
I know full well that there is black (and other race) fear and prejudice out there. Wouldn't even try to pretend that there wasn't.
Who is "they", and what is your point? That some people don't have the culturally ingrained negative reaction? OK. I don't disagree.
The women in Garbo's example of clutching their purses tighter or moving them.
And I think that is my point, that some don't have an ingrained negative reaction.
Quote from: Sita on December 01, 2012, 07:06:17 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 06:58:13 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 01, 2012, 06:25:22 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 04:48:29 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 01, 2012, 01:54:03 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 02:50:33 AM
Watch the way white women act around black men sometimes, see how many of them clutch their purses or switch shoulders to keep the purse away. If you were to ask them if they were racist, they'd probably say no and that they actively fight against it.They just don't realize they're doing it.
And what do they do around other people? How many of those women also react the same when any man comes near, or any person at all for that matter.
If you are only looking at one thing it's easy to find what you want.
Uh, are you saying that black fear doesn't exist? :lol: :lol: :lol:
It's incredibly well-studied and well-documented. Even BLACK people are more afraid of Black men then of white men. It's an issue which suffuses our entire culture.
Not at all. Just that you have to look and see if they react that way only with black people or with everyone.
I know full well that there is black (and other race) fear and prejudice out there. Wouldn't even try to pretend that there wasn't.
Who is "they", and what is your point? That some people don't have the culturally ingrained negative reaction? OK. I don't disagree.
The women in Garbo's example of clutching their purses tighter or moving them.
And I think that is my point, that some don't have an ingrained negative reaction.
So you're saying that the women in Garbo's example who do that out of culturally ingrained racism, which we know exists as a fact that is not under dispute, might not be doing it out of culturally ingrained racism, because some people don't? Even though the example was of women who do?
I'm sorry, that is the stupidest fucking point ever.
For the record, in America, all the available evidence indicates that the only people who don't have that culturally ingrained negative reaction are people who aren't from here and people who have consciously trained it out of themselves.
Including black men, in a horrible ironic twist.
Just that in the example given that it isn't a sure fact it's racially driven.
But then it could just be me and the fact that I would react that way no matter who the person was. If it's someone I don't know coming near me I will either move over some or hold my purse closer to my body.
But then I'm probably just not making any sense and have no point. Think I'll go back to lurking.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 07:10:07 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 01, 2012, 07:06:17 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 06:58:13 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 01, 2012, 06:25:22 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 04:48:29 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 01, 2012, 01:54:03 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 02:50:33 AM
Watch the way white women act around black men sometimes, see how many of them clutch their purses or switch shoulders to keep the purse away. If you were to ask them if they were racist, they'd probably say no and that they actively fight against it.They just don't realize they're doing it.
And what do they do around other people? How many of those women also react the same when any man comes near, or any person at all for that matter.
If you are only looking at one thing it's easy to find what you want.
Uh, are you saying that black fear doesn't exist? :lol: :lol: :lol:
It's incredibly well-studied and well-documented. Even BLACK people are more afraid of Black men then of white men. It's an issue which suffuses our entire culture.
Not at all. Just that you have to look and see if they react that way only with black people or with everyone.
I know full well that there is black (and other race) fear and prejudice out there. Wouldn't even try to pretend that there wasn't.
Who is "they", and what is your point? That some people don't have the culturally ingrained negative reaction? OK. I don't disagree.
The women in Garbo's example of clutching their purses tighter or moving them.
And I think that is my point, that some don't have an ingrained negative reaction.
So you're saying that the women in Garbo's example who do that out of culturally ingrained racism, which we know exists as a fact that is not under dispute, might not be doing it out of culturally ingrained racism, because some people don't? Even though the example was of women who do?
I'm sorry, that is the stupidest fucking point ever.
For the record, in America, all the available evidence indicates that the only people who don't have that culturally ingrained negative reaction are people who aren't from here and people who have consciously trained it out of themselves.
So much THIS.
There is a TON of shit like this you have to train yourself out of. And just when you think you found it all, some other little thing will come into your awareness.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 30, 2012, 08:31:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 04:35:49 PM
I don't think I belong here, anymore.
Put on your big boy pants, dude. This is not gonna be a good century for people who give up so easily. Besides, who gives a flying ratfuck if anyone is offended? IMO that's their fucking problem.
At this point (reading up on my backlog, halfway through) I am not sure it's in my best interest to have to say this, but this is so right. I salute it mightily.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 08:35:06 PM
You can indulge in self-righteous purity, or you can accomplish things. You have to decide.
That puts me in mind of two bon mots I know.
One's from my stepmum. She says you're alright if you know what compromises you have made and you think they are alright.
The other, a particularly Discordian quote to my mind, is spoken in a Hungarian film by on old crone whose young adult granddaughter has picked up a fella and dragged him home:
"There's just two stupid things you can do in life: insisting on your principles and dumping all over them."
In other words, I guess, as far as I can see, a balance is required that allows one to look in the mirror.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 01, 2012, 07:30:13 PM
There is a TON of shit like this you have to train yourself out of. And just when you think you found it all, some other little thing will come into your awareness.
That's amazing.
In my family, somehow, without being too 'aware' or reflective about it, race was never considered a characteristic to build value judgments on. As a result, this sort of thinking was not ingrained in me, and when I encountered it, I, like my parents, found it faintly repugnant and somehow depressing even in its mildest manifestations, and most vehemently not okay if it went any further than that. Poor Americans.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2012, 06:41:35 PM
Nigel & Garbo: I'm sorry about my behavior yesterday. Having finally had some sleep, I'm more than a little mortified.
:) No worries. I was no saint, either, yesterday.
Quote from: chimes on December 01, 2012, 03:24:02 AM
It seems like RWHN is talking about an ally as a promoter of a cause in practical/logistical terms ("the muscle of the operation"), whereas Garbo is talking about an ally as a person who truly understands the cause, and subsequently works to improve themselves and their behavior based on that understanding.
Both are people working to forward the cause, but each definition of ally has different conditions.
I guess you could make that argument. I feel like that's the difference between LIKE'ing something and really working to make change, though. Those little behaviors perpetuate the very problems we want to solve.
Quote from: Sita on December 01, 2012, 01:54:03 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 02:50:33 AM
Watch the way white women act around black men sometimes, see how many of them clutch their purses or switch shoulders to keep the purse away. If you were to ask them if they were racist, they'd probably say no and that they actively fight against it.They just don't realize they're doing it.
And what do they do around other people? How many of those women also react the same when any man comes near, or any person at all for that matter.
If you are only looking at one thing it's easy to find what you want.
Sure, some white ladies/females are gonna do it around everybody, but a lot of them are going to do it far, far more consistently around black men (our culture portrays them as violent thieves, after all). Ask a couple black dudes. I'm sure they'll tell you that white women tend to clutch their purses when walking near them, even though they're just brushing shoulders in the mall.
And also, in relation to a comment you made down thread from this one, this sort of thing isn't punishing women/females for thinking about self defense. On the contrary, it's analyzing the situation more closely than "black guy nearby = I need to be scared".
I think that is a key and maybe why I don't buy into this idea that everyone has all of these layers and need to really work on not being a bigoted asshole. It certainly has never been an issue for me, and I've always gravitated to being completely open to other cultures, minorities, etc. My prejudice has always simply been with idiots and morons and those come in all shapes, sizes, colors, etc., But I wasn't raised in a family or an environment where there was all of this underlying racism and prejudice. I grew up with the values of openness and inclusiveness. And I think there are many out in the world who have this same experience. For sure, someone who was brought up in a racist context or environment probably will have some work to do to obtain and maintain clarity of thought, but it surely isn't everyone, and without looking into one's heart and mind, it is honestly fairly rude and offensive to claim to know otherwise.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 08:48:40 PM
I think that is a key and maybe why I don't buy into this idea that everyone has all of these layers and need to really work on not being a bigoted asshole. It certainly has never been an issue for me, and I've always gravitated to being completely open to other cultures, minorities, etc. My prejudice has always simply been with idiots and morons and those come in all shapes, sizes, colors, etc., But I wasn't raised in a family or an environment where there was all of this underlying racism and prejudice. I grew up with the values of openness and inclusiveness. And I think there are many out in the world who have this same experience. For sure, someone who was brought up in a racist context or environment probably will have some work to do to obtain and maintain clarity of thought, but it surely isn't everyone, and without looking into one's heart and mind, it is honestly fairly rude and offensive to claim to know otherwise.
Your family might have been that way, and that sure as fuck helps, but the society you live in - the memes you are bathed in from cradle to grave in every form of human interaction - is fucking bigoted. You pick those up, whether you like it or not, and you have to actively remove them.
You don't know anything about me, about my environment, about the context I grew up in, about what is in my mind, in my heart. It's a baseless, and I will say, yes, prejudicial assumption. I think you maybe need to work a little harder on training yourself out of your prejudice.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 08:58:19 PM
You don't know anything about me, about my environment, about the context I grew up in, about what is in my mind, in my heart. It's a baseless, and I will say, yes, prejudicial assumption. I think you maybe need to work a little harder on training yourself out of your prejudice.
I know what wider culture you grew up in because it's the same as mine. Do you deny the fact that we get a lot of bad signal from our culture?
I deny the assumption that everyone soaks it up like a hapless sponge.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 09:21:31 PM
I deny the assumption that everyone soaks it up like a hapless sponge.
Yesssss.
Sorrey.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 09:21:31 PM
I deny the assumption that everyone soaks it up like a hapless sponge.
Everyone soaks a good portion of it up like a hapless sponge. Especially when we're little (which is why having a minimally bigoted family is enormously helpful).
And you know this how? I mean, besides it being a belief, do you have any evidence to back up the idea that EVERYONE soaks this stuff up?
Observation and I know something about socialization (the method by which one learns the norms and rules of one's society, which starts pretty quickly after birth). Parents can direct the process, but can't have 100% control over it unless they are the ONLY social interactions their kid ever has and they never expose their child to media.
:lulz: Where the hell do you get the idea that most people can avoid picking up the bad signal? Why do you think most people are have shitty beliefs? How do you think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. perpetuate?
Where the hell do you get the idea that you have the ability to decide how "most" people are?
Uh, I know what kind of society we live in and what kind of people it raises. And again, I get socialization.
It's clear that you seem to think that you do. Keep in mind, people aren't books, they aren't meat-robots. Humans are a bit more complex than you give credit, and that includes the fact that there are many have the resiliency and awareness to either re-program, or understand when signal is bad and when to ignore it, or at least, note it for what it is. We are not all hapless sponges.
:roll:
Do you think photographers mean to be insensitive when they pose white women in submissive positions or put WoC in racist, predatory poses? Or that people meant to be racist when they called Michelle Obama an angry black woman? That those purse-clutching white ladies realize what they're doing and how it hurts black men? That men mean to be insensitive when they white knight the ladies? Or that everyone realizes what a slur "tranny" is?
Of course they don't. They don't realize they're spitting out memes that are offensive because those memes have been so normalized.
Yes, but what I'm telling you is that not everyone in the world is a bleeting moron, completely oblivious to that shit. And you aren't going to change a lick of any of that if you automatically indict everyone. Who the fuck would want to be your ally if you are simultaneously insulting them and labelling them?
:| I never said they *were* a bleeting moron. I said they're products of their society, just like you and I are. But change is possible; it just takes a fuck ton of work because "normal" is frequently "shitty".
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 09:30:42 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 09:21:31 PM
I deny the assumption that everyone soaks it up like a hapless sponge.
Everyone soaks a good portion of it up like a hapless sponge. Especially when we're little (which is why having a minimally bigoted family is enormously helpful).
That's what babies and children are designed to do. Then when we get older we start questioning bits and pieces. But there are always bits and pieces we haven't questioned yet. It's hard to question things you aren't aware of, and a lot of our cultural programming is invisible to us, because it's our "normal".
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 10:35:53 PM
:| I never said they *were* a bleeting moron. I said they're products of their society, just like you and I are. But change is possible; it just takes a fuck ton of work because "normal" is frequently "shitty".
It doesn't take any work for me at all but I also don't think I'm a special snowflake and know there are plenty like me in society. For me normal is equality, people are individuals and should be judged and respected as such. It's plain as day and has been for as long as I can remember. I know I'm not alone or special in this.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 10:03:42 PM
Where the hell do you get the idea that you have the ability to decide how "most" people are?
I don't think that either she nor I have "decided". I am guessing she gets her information from the same basic place that I get mine, which is the available psychological and sociological literature. Not all of it is right, but some things have been studied for long enough, and comprehensively enough, that I think it's reasonable to say that the understanding we (by which I mean the field of psychology, not Garbo and I) have of it is founded in a fair body of rational evidence.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 10:40:20 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 10:35:53 PM
:| I never said they *were* a bleeting moron. I said they're products of their society, just like you and I are. But change is possible; it just takes a fuck ton of work because "normal" is frequently "shitty".
It doesn't take any work for me at all but I also don't think I'm a special snowflake and know there are plenty like me in society. For me normal is equality, people are individuals and should be judged and respected as such. It's plain as day and has been for as long as I can remember. I know I'm not alone or special in this.
JFC. You're like a wall.
Yeah, and I studied psychology and sociology in college too, I've been there. But here on the ground, I have a different perspective. Here's the thing, I do a LOT of community work. Not just my paid job of substance abuse prevention, but I'm also involved ininititives involving poverty, adverse childhood experiences, behavioral health, etc. So I have many and varied partners, so I know that there are many good people out there,plenty aware of culture and society, and who don't have some deep-seated or ingrained racism that they have to struggle to normalize or control or disarm. They have the same core values I have of dignity andrespect for all. I absolutely deny and reject the idea because I know, in practice, it isn't a universal. I think it is a little insensitive to those who are actively trying to change things, to claim that it is.
:roll:
Oh look, it's Mr. Eye-Rolly again. I'm sorry I'm raining sunshine on your parade, but I just find this "society=shit" meme so...old. And pointless, and unworkable. And it ain't going to solve shit. If you approach everything from a deficit orientation, you're going to constantly be losing. There are strengths within our society, positives, and they are the assets to influence and affect change. You need to be able to recognize that.
A society that marginalizes significant portions of the population - which ours does - is a shitty society. We can do a lot to fix it. We have. But we have a lot more to go and in order to fix the problem, that there is a fundamental problem with our society must be admitted.
I live and work on the ground, too, FYI.
I guess my question for you, then, RWHN, is, are you arguing that prejudice, including racism and sexism, simply aren't problems in America? Or are you saying that the majority of the people in the US are knowingly, deliberately, maliciously prejudiced, and are wilfully exercising discrimination?
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 11:08:48 PM
I live and work on the ground, too, FYI.
I guess my question for you, then, RWHN, is, are you arguing that prejudice, including racism and sexism, simply aren't problems in America?
Jesus, of course the fuck not.
QuoteOr are you saying that the majority of the people in the US are knowingly, deliberately, maliciously prejudiced, and are wilfully exercising discrimination?
What I've been arguing against is the idea that everyone, everywhere, across the board, has some degree of racism or prejudice, including those who aren't outwardly racist but have stuff buried deep that they need to constantly struggle to keep in check. That is what Garbo has suggested. Because everyone is a sponge soaking up societies bad shit, and it's everyone's normal. I reject that notion as a universal. That's my argument. Not that prejudice and racism don't exist, but, that it doesn't exist, universally, within everyone. I think that is overly cynical, and I think it is false.
You can't live in a shitty society without picking up its memes. You can, however, remove them.
Did you ever take one of the IATs I linked to?
Meh, sorry, I've reached my cynicism quota for the day. If I see "shitty society" one more time I might accidentally both my wrists. Let some sunshine in Garbo. That's all I can say.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 11:14:51 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 11:08:48 PM
I live and work on the ground, too, FYI.
I guess my question for you, then, RWHN, is, are you arguing that prejudice, including racism and sexism, simply aren't problems in America?
Jesus, of course the fuck not.
QuoteOr are you saying that the majority of the people in the US are knowingly, deliberately, maliciously prejudiced, and are wilfully exercising discrimination?
What I've been arguing against is the idea that everyone, everywhere, across the board, has some degree of racism or prejudice, including those who aren't outwardly racist but have stuff buried deep that they need to constantly struggle to keep in check. That is what Garbo has suggested. Because everyone is a sponge soaking up societies bad shit, and it's everyone's normal. I reject that notion as a universal. That's my argument. Not that prejudice and racism don't exist, but, that it doesn't exist, universally, within everyone. I think that is overly cynical, and I think it is false.
But the available evidence does suggest that everyone carries some unconscious prejudices which we are unaware of, and that's one of the reasons that life is a constant process of learning and growth. Including me. Including you. Prejudices are part of the way we make order of the world, and one of the reasons it's so valuable to be aware of implicit prejudice that we pick up simply by growing up in the culture that surrounds us is that it helps us shift our thinking away from it. Some people do seem to be free of prejudice, which is really quite startling, by the vast majority of us do have some prejudices. A kid whose mom's boyfriend smacked him hard one time might to this day have a prejudice against men with moustaches, and have no idea that he has it, or why. An adult who grew up seeing Middle Eastern men portrayed as terrorists might have an involuntary fear reaction when he encounters a Middle Eastern man, and not consciously recognize it.
Media plays a huge role in this, and so do the people around us. If you were raised, as I was, by people who eschew racism and encourage you to be aware of how you treat others, you have a huge, huge head start in terms of awareness and banishing prejudice. But even so, prejudice is a natural part of human existence, and odds are very good that you and I have some minor ones we're not aware of. Toward truck-driving rednecks, for example, or people who ride bicycles without a helmet (that's actually one of mine that I'm working on).
I'm afraid of men. Not cripplingly afraid, but there is always a tiny voice saying "he could turn on you" and "he could have a dirty little secret", even with the men I feel 99.9% safe with and love the most. It may have a completely explainable history, but it's a prejudice.
Prejudice, like I said, is natural. It's part of the brain's categorizing system that helps keep us safe; part of our self-preservation mechanism. Where it is a problem is when we're unaware, and we let that prejudice become discrimination.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 11:31:23 PM
Prejudice, like I said, is natural. It's part of the brain's categorizing system that helps keep us safe; part of our self-preservation mechanism. Where it is a problem is when we're unaware, and we let that prejudice become discrimination.
Prejudice is indeed natural. Allowing one's prejudices to determine one's actions in anything other than emergency situations is not natural, neither is it long-term adaptive, except that evolutionary process is in progress now - observe Fox News. Yet basing most of one's decisions on prejudices is widespread. I strongly agree with RWHN that it is not universal and that thinking it is universal breeds cynicism and pessimism (and self-doubt) that is unrealistic and excessive.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 11:06:33 PM
A society that marginalizes significant portions of the population - which ours does - is a shitty society. We can do a lot to fix it. We have. But we have a lot more to go and in order to fix the problem, that there is a fundamental problem with our society must be admitted.
Ah now I understand, the best way to combat these problems is to insult the people you are trying to convince and roll your eyes at them.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 11:26:41 PM
Meh, sorry, I've reached my cynicism quota for the day. If I see "shitty society" one more time I might accidentally both my wrists. Let some sunshine in Garbo. That's all I can say.
A polished turd
does reflect more sunshine, I've got to hand it to you.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 11:26:41 PM
Meh, sorry, I've reached my cynicism quota for the day. If I see "shitty society" one more time I might accidentally both my wrists. Let some sunshine in Garbo. That's all I can say.
One person's cynicism is another person's realism.
That being said, life just isn't that bad. Unless you're the castrated Black guy being sold on Facebook, and then I'd have to argue that it sucks a whole bunch.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 02, 2012, 04:09:40 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 11:26:41 PM
Meh, sorry, I've reached my cynicism quota for the day. If I see "shitty society" one more time I might accidentally both my wrists. Let some sunshine in Garbo. That's all I can say.
One person's cynicism is another person's realism.
That being said, life just isn't that bad. Unless you're the castrated Black guy being sold on Facebook, and then I'd have to argue that it sucks a whole bunch.
Yep. :lol:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 02, 2012, 04:09:40 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 11:26:41 PM
Meh, sorry, I've reached my cynicism quota for the day. If I see "shitty society" one more time I might accidentally both my wrists. Let some sunshine in Garbo. That's all I can say.
One person's cynicism is another person's realism.
That being said, life just isn't that bad. Unless you're the castrated Black guy being sold on Facebook, and then I'd have to argue that it sucks a whole bunch.
Jeezus, have I said anywhere that life is a bowl of peaches for everyone everywhere all the time? I hate these all-or-nothing models and views in these discussions. If one merely hints that the truth probably lies in some gray area between the black and white, those on the black side immediately recast that person as being 100% on the white side.
My point, if people can take a minute to really think about it without resorting to extremes, is that there IS good in this world. There IS progress. There ARE people who have their wits about them, have freed themselves of prejudice, and are out there working hard to help advance change. Is it fast enough? Nope, but people need to apply some of that realism you are talking about.
If all you do is trade in doom and gloom you will never get anywhere, because your (I'm using a general "your" here, not addressing any one specific person) vision is limited to the allies and strengths you have at your disposal. A strengths-based approach will always be more productive than a deficit orientation. Deficit orientation expects the worst and gets it because it doesn't use all of the tools available. Strengths-based does use those tools and sets goals, and then works its ass of to achieve those goals. It doesn't always succeed, but it makes more progress.
I feel like I've talked a lot about gray area, because I think that most of us fall into some kind of gray area, but it gets ignored or talked around by people who seem determined to find points in my posts that aren't there, or they reply to me with points that are apparently intended to refute something someone else said.
Well, if you do recognize that there are strengths and people with strengths that can be optimized and incorporated for effective change then my point doesn't pertain to you.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 02, 2012, 06:35:14 PM
Well, if you do recognize that there are strengths and people with strengths that can be optimized and incorporated for effective change then my point doesn't pertain to you.
Well, it can get a little confusing when you quote my posts and then argue with points I didn't make. The whole "diologue" thing seems to work better if you quote the person you're responding to, instead of someone else.
Not that you have done that today. But most of yesterday's incredibly frustrating conversation apparently came of you quoting my posts but then responding to Garbo or some other person, and that really doesn't help advance the dialogue at all.
That's because it felt to me from some of your posts that you agreed with her opinion that everyone is tainted. And I strongly disagree with that sentiment.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 02, 2012, 07:56:34 PM
That's because it felt to me from some of your posts that you agreed with her opinion that everyone is tainted. And I strongly disagree with that sentiment.
I think, dear Reverend, perhaps one lesson worth taking away from this is that it is quite possible, nay, not infrequent for people to think they are free of excessive prejudice (i.e. unnecessarily basing actions on prejudice). The other lessons (thanks to those inadvertent prejudice tests) I think, is that it is very possible, almost inevitable to have some unconscious bias. I don't think that in itself proves that "everyone is tainted" though. Let's not get into thoughtcrime territory. Prejudice not acted out is ultimately counterproductive, maladaptive, but it is largely harmless, especially if we know about them and can hence attempt at least to balance them out, hopefully (sorry, Alty) improving in the progress.
Quote from: holist on December 01, 2012, 08:34:30 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 01, 2012, 07:30:13 PM
There is a TON of shit like this you have to train yourself out of. And just when you think you found it all, some other little thing will come into your awareness.
That's amazing.
In my family, somehow, without being too 'aware' or reflective about it, race was never considered a characteristic to build value judgments on. As a result, this sort of thinking was not ingrained in me, and when I encountered it, I, like my parents, found it faintly repugnant and somehow depressing even in its mildest manifestations, and most vehemently not okay if it went any further than that. Poor Americans.
Nice to hear you've spent your life in a hermetically sealed box with your enlightened parents and never had exposure to other people or media, since a lot of us don't want to know you.
Enjoy the response. There won't be any more.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 02, 2012, 08:30:50 PM
Nice to hear you've spent your life in a hermetically sealed box with your enlightened parents and never had exposure to other people or media, since a lot of us don't want to know you.
Enjoy the response. There won't be any more.
You misunderstood me. My parents were very far from enlightened, Holy Jesus, were they far from it. But they were not particularly prejudiced, because they in turn came from families that had suffered at the wrong end of the stick of social prejudice (Budapest Jews, my dad, a hearing boy, was born to two Jewish, deaf parents in central Budapest, my mum came from a line of minority Hungarians in Transsylvania...)
Thing is, prejudice is not something you learn from the world at large when you are little: you learn it first from your parents, then the entire family and friends larger group, then, once you unwittingly join the education industry, your peer group and a bunch of mostly rather sorry or mean people whose job is largely to lie to children...
It is truly ironic, that a bunch of Americans, whose lands, while much affected by it, were at least largely not visited by the funfair we call World War II, who abandoned us because we were not worth saving from the Soviet variety of fascism, as a little pawn in a large game, and did it again in 1956, insist that I am a "privileged white boy". But do carry on, or ignore me, as you wish.
Damn, I got angry again. Duh.
Quote from: holist on December 02, 2012, 08:42:53 PM
It is truly ironic, that a bunch of Americans, whose lands, while much affected by it, were at least largely not visited by the funfair we call World War II, who abandoned us because we were not worth saving from the Soviet variety of fascism, as a little pawn in a large game, and did it again in 1956, insist that I am a "privileged white boy". But do carry on, or ignore me, as you wish.
That's what happens to pawns in international politics. Hungary is a small and unimportant nation, with no irreplaceable resources. Nobody was going to toss a nuclear war over your freedom or lack thereof.
Also, you are STILL stuck on the idea that privilege is a black & white issue, that it's all the same and that you either have it or you don't. This isn't the case.
^^^ That. Far and away, most of us have some kind of it, but privilege intersects with so many parts of your life (where you're from, your race, gender, sex, religion, ability, sexuality, etc.) that it's to varying degrees. It's an incredibly complex issue.
Quote from: Faust on December 02, 2012, 10:29:01 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 11:06:33 PM
A society that marginalizes significant portions of the population - which ours does - is a shitty society. We can do a lot to fix it. We have. But we have a lot more to go and in order to fix the problem, that there is a fundamental problem with our society must be admitted.
Ah now I understand, the best way to combat these problems is to insult the people you are trying to convince and roll your eyes at them.
My response to him had to do with him misconstruing my argument for three pages, mostly.
Speaking of which, I'll back off the "universal" point. There is possibly a person out there without a smidgen of prejudice, but I think they're pretty much a unicorn and 99.9999999999999+% of us will never meet them.
RWHN,
Unicorn
Garbo,
Doubts it
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 12:53:42 AM
^^^ That. Far and away, most of us have some kind of it, but privilege intersects with so many parts of your life (where you're from, your race, gender, sex, religion, ability, sexuality, etc.) that it's to varying degrees. It's an incredibly complex issue.
It's a pointless issue. We can spend our time in self-reflection and self-examination, measuring our prejudice and privilege, or we can just roll up our sleeves and actually try to fix shit. Honestly, speaking from experience, someone who is underprivileged could give a fuck if you're privileged or not, as long as you walk the talk of trying to fix shit.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 01:18:16 AM
Garbo,
Doubts it
Based on what information? Right, none. It's simply your belief that everyone MUST be tainted. Because this is obviously one of YOUR prejudices.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 01:16:37 AM
RWHN,
Unicorn
The fact that you don't recognize it doesn't mean it isn't there.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 03, 2012, 01:24:21 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 01:16:37 AM
RWHN,
Unicorn
The fact that you don't recognize it doesn't mean it isn't there.
^^^ This. I believe you when you say you're committed to equality. I just don't believe you've managed to escape the bad signal totally unscathed.
And honestly, it's not a condemnation of you.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 03, 2012, 01:24:21 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 01:16:37 AM
RWHN,
Unicorn
The fact that you don't recognize it doesn't mean it isn't there.
No, it's the fact that it isn't there that means it isn't there.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 12:59:33 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 02, 2012, 10:29:01 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 11:06:33 PM
A society that marginalizes significant portions of the population - which ours does - is a shitty society. We can do a lot to fix it. We have. But we have a lot more to go and in order to fix the problem, that there is a fundamental problem with our society must be admitted.
Ah now I understand, the best way to combat these problems is to insult the people you are trying to convince and roll your eyes at them.
My response to him had to do with him misconstruing my argument for three pages, mostly.
Speaking of which, I'll back off the "universal" point. There is possibly a person out there without a smidgen of prejudice, but I think they're pretty much a unicorn and 99.9999999999999+% of us will never meet them.
Female AIDS baby in the Congo.
I think that about covers it.
EDIT: Whoops. Read "prejudice" as "privilege".
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 01:26:31 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 03, 2012, 01:24:21 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 01:16:37 AM
RWHN,
Unicorn
The fact that you don't recognize it doesn't mean it isn't there.
^^^ This. I believe you when you say you're committed to equality. I just don't believe you've managed to escape the bad signal totally unscathed.
As I explained, I was raised in a situation and environment where bad signal was apparent to me at a fairly early age. I mean, it's why I left my parent's faith behind me in my tweens. And as someone else mentioned, we are born without prejudice, we are born without baggage. That shit is learned, and it is learned. in situations where one is not insatilled with the values to shun and reject that bad signal. I was instilled with those values. I was surrounded by adults for whom that was a strong value, and again, I don't feel I am that special and unique in that aspect. Of course, things would be better if that was a much more widespread set of values, but I think it is incorrect to assume they can't exist, because they do. I am walking proof.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2012, 02:24:31 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 01:16:37 AM
RWHN,
Unicorn
Not possible.
That is your belief, I hold that it is incorrect. I know me, you don't know me. You can believe and assume what you wish, but you will still be making a guess, one that happens to be incorrect.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 02:29:04 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 01:26:31 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 03, 2012, 01:24:21 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 01:16:37 AM
RWHN,
Unicorn
The fact that you don't recognize it doesn't mean it isn't there.
^^^ This. I believe you when you say you're committed to equality. I just don't believe you've managed to escape the bad signal totally unscathed.
As I explained, I was raised in a situation and environment where bad signal was apparent to me at a fairly early age. I mean, it's why I left my parent's faith behind me in my tweens. And as someone else mentioned, we are born without prejudice, we are born without baggage. That shit is learned, and it is learned. in situations where one is not insatilled with the values to shun and reject that bad signal. I was instilled with those values. I was surrounded by adults for whom that was a strong value, and again, I don't feel I am that special and unique in that aspect. Of course, things would be better if that was a much more widespread set of values, but I think it is incorrect to assume they can't exist, because they do. I am walking proof.
NO prejudice AT ALL?
Really.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the second coming of Jesus H Christ. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2012, 02:31:40 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 02:29:04 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 01:26:31 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 03, 2012, 01:24:21 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 01:16:37 AM
RWHN,
Unicorn
The fact that you don't recognize it doesn't mean it isn't there.
^^^ This. I believe you when you say you're committed to equality. I just don't believe you've managed to escape the bad signal totally unscathed.
As I explained, I was raised in a situation and environment where bad signal was apparent to me at a fairly early age. I mean, it's why I left my parent's faith behind me in my tweens. And as someone else mentioned, we are born without prejudice, we are born without baggage. That shit is learned, and it is learned. in situations where one is not insatilled with the values to shun and reject that bad signal. I was instilled with those values. I was surrounded by adults for whom that was a strong value, and again, I don't feel I am that special and unique in that aspect. Of course, things would be better if that was a much more widespread set of values, but I think it is incorrect to assume they can't exist, because they do. I am walking proof.
NO prejudice AT ALL?
Really.
People are individuals and should be judged on their individual merits. It's always been a core value of mine. Again, I feel I have ample company in that respect.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2012, 02:32:23 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the second coming of Jesus H Christ. :lulz:
:lulz: Yes, apparently.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 02:29:04 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 01:26:31 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 03, 2012, 01:24:21 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 01:16:37 AM
RWHN,
Unicorn
The fact that you don't recognize it doesn't mean it isn't there.
^^^ This. I believe you when you say you're committed to equality. I just don't believe you've managed to escape the bad signal totally unscathed.
As I explained, I was raised in a situation and environment where bad signal was apparent to me at a fairly early age. I mean, it's why I left my parent's faith behind me in my tweens. And as someone else mentioned, we are born without prejudice, we are born without baggage. That shit is learned, and it is learned. in situations where one is not insatilled with the values to shun and reject that bad signal. I was instilled with those values. I was surrounded by adults for whom that was a strong value, and again, I don't feel I am that special and unique in that aspect. Of course, things would be better if that was a much more widespread set of values, but I think it is incorrect to assume they can't exist, because they do. I am walking proof.
I believe that your parents made an enormous effort to make you aware of the bad signal. Which is fantastic and I wish all parents did that. But I don't believe that you managed to deflect EVERY bad meme. There's too many of them.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2012, 02:32:23 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the second coming of Jesus H Christ. :lulz:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbra-rKXzk4
Give me an example of a bad meme you haven't been able to deflect.
Sure. I used to body shame skinny women.
Give me an example of an event you're totally unaware of.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 02:49:08 AM
Give me an example of a bad meme you haven't been able to deflect.
1. Strangers are dangerous, way more dangerous than people you already know.
2. Hispanics who wear baggy clothes are gang bangers who will probably shoot you as soon as look at you.
3. Black men will do something bad to you if they have the chance.
There's others probably, but these are the ones I personally am aware of and try my damnedest not to react to. I realize that your comment was directed at Garbo, but you're simply acting like a supercilious, condescending asshole right now.
Quote from: Pæs on December 03, 2012, 02:54:36 AM
Give me an example of an event you're totally unaware of.
:lulz:
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on December 03, 2012, 02:54:55 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 02:49:08 AM
Give me an example of a bad meme you haven't been able to deflect.
1. Strangers are dangerous, way more dangerous than people you already know.
That's not prejudice, that's called personal safety.
Quote2. Hispanics who wear baggy clothes are gang bangers who will probably shoot you as soon as look at you.
Perhaps I would have developed that one if I had grown up in a community with Hispanic people. I grew up in a sea of French people, as far as the eye could see.
Quote3. Black men will do something bad to you if they have the chance.
Really? Why? Again, I grew up in Maine, which is currently the whitest state in the nation. But the first black person I met was a girl who was adopted from Kenya. She was very nice, we actually dated briefly.
Quote from: Pæs on December 03, 2012, 02:54:36 AM
Give me an example of an event you're totally unaware of.
Eh, except Garbo and others have talked about a constant effort to battle back bad signal and bad memes they've absorbed. You kind of have to be aware of that to be able to work against it, unless of course, it's made up and it isn't actually there.
Quote from: Pæs on December 03, 2012, 02:54:36 AM
Give me an example of an event you're totally unaware of.
:golfclap:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 02:55:23 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 02:53:28 AM
Sure. I used to body shame skinny women.
Why?
Because I had swallowed part of the idea of what a woman is supposed to look like, and thin, not-curvy bodies didn't fit the picture. Which also came along with the idea that these women had worked to get that way, which was shallow and that they cared more about their looks than their health/brains, which is kind of a shitty assumption, given the kind of pressure women live under everyday.
And mind you, this is even with me growing up in a quasi-feminist household, where my mother made an effort to teach us not to be ashamed if we didn't fit that ideal.
(and yes, as Freeky said, you're being a condescending asshole, but I'll play along for now)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 03:00:59 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on December 03, 2012, 02:54:55 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 02:49:08 AM
Give me an example of a bad meme you haven't been able to deflect.
1. Strangers are dangerous, way more dangerous than people you already know.
That's not prejudice, that's called personal safety.
Quote2. Hispanics who wear baggy clothes are gang bangers who will probably shoot you as soon as look at you.
Perhaps I would have developed that one if I had grown up in a community with Hispanic people. I grew up in a sea of French people, as far as the eye could see.
Quote3. Black men will do something bad to you if they have the chance.
Really? Why? Again, I grew up in Maine, which is currently the whitest state in the nation. But the first black person I met was a girl who was adopted from Kenya. She was very nice, we actually dated briefly.
Black fear. Duh. Black men are criminals/rapists/drug addicts/vile evil-doers who will murder you as soon as look at you, according to movies, books, TV shows, the news, etc.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 03:03:24 AM
Quote from: Pæs on December 03, 2012, 02:54:36 AM
Give me an example of an event you're totally unaware of.
Eh, except Garbo and others have talked about a constant effort to battle back bad signal and bad memes they've absorbed. You kind of have to be aware of that to be able to work against it, unless of course, it's made up and it isn't actually there.
The shaming thing was pointed out to me, in a rather public forum. I've since learned to make an effort to think about my thoughts, words, and reactions.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 02:53:28 AM
Because I had swallowed part of the idea of what a woman is supposed to look like, and thin, not-curvy bodies didn't fit the picture. Which also came along with the idea that these women had worked to get that way, which was shallow and that they cared more about their looks than their health/brains, which is kind of a shitty assumption, given the kind of pressure women live under everyday.
And mind you, this is even with me growing up in a quasi-feminist household, where my mother made an effort to teach us not to be ashamed if we didn't fit that ideal.
Huh, interesting. I'd have just figured they had mouse-like metabolisms, like mine, and that was why they were so skinny. With obese people, I've happened to have known a couple who had some glandular or some other medical issue, I can't remember what it was exactly, and so it was a huge contributor to their weight. So because of that I wouldn't hazard to automatically assume a fat person is someone who told self-control to fuck off.
Quote(and yes, as Freeky said, you're being a condescending asshole, but I'll play along for now)
Condescending assholes are people too. Don't you judge me! ;)
QuoteQuote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 03:00:59 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on December 03, 2012, 02:54:55 AM
Quote3. Black men will do something bad to you if they have the chance.
Really? Why? Again, I grew up in Maine, which is currently the whitest state in the nation. But the first black person I met was a girl who was adopted from Kenya. She was very nice, we actually dated briefly.
Black fear. Duh. Black men are criminals/rapists/drug addicts/vile evil-doers who will murder you as soon as look at you, according to movies, books, TV shows, the news, etc.
We got like three channels up north so I guess I missed all of that stuff. I do remember my Gramps, the WW II vet, saying some awful stuff about "The Japs", but somehow it didn't cause me to think every time I saw a Japanese person that they were going to bomb the fuck out of my boats.
I mean, here's the deal, one of the things that drew me to Discordianism is when I read the PD, and came to this section:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/56.php
[/size]
[/size]Particularily this passage:
[/size]
Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the ANERISTIC ILLUSION. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.
It was a complete head-nodding experience. Yes! It was something I always felt and knew but had just never saw expressed and laid out that way. And I truly believe there many more out there who hold that same philosophy. Sorry, this looks all funky, my iPad always seems to fuck up when I cut and paste from other sources.
Resolving and removing prejudices is not like solving a math problem.
No human being can simply apply their conscious, rational mind and truthfully declare "Having seen the root of this prejudice, I decide that it will not influence my thoughts any more."
Human beings do not possess that degree of control over their brainmeat.
A person CAN, however, consciously realize that their prejudices are irrational/stupid/wrong, and remove as much of that influence as much as possible. It takes time and a willingness to challenge one's instincts and gut reactions.
It's called the Black Iron Prison for a reason.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 03:15:46 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 02:53:28 AM
Because I had swallowed part of the idea of what a woman is supposed to look like, and thin, not-curvy bodies didn't fit the picture. Which also came along with the idea that these women had worked to get that way, which was shallow and that they cared more about their looks than their health/brains, which is kind of a shitty assumption, given the kind of pressure women live under everyday.
And mind you, this is even with me growing up in a quasi-feminist household, where my mother made an effort to teach us not to be ashamed if we didn't fit that ideal.
Huh, interesting. I'd have just figured they had mouse-like metabolisms, like mine, and that was why they were so skinny. With obese people, I've happened to have known a couple who had some glandular or some other medical issue, I can't remember what it was exactly, and so it was a huge contributor to their weight. So because of that I wouldn't hazard to automatically assume a fat person is someone who told self-control to fuck off.
Quote(and yes, as Freeky said, you're being a condescending asshole, but I'll play along for now)
Condescending assholes are people too. Don't you judge me! ;)
QuoteQuote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 03:00:59 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on December 03, 2012, 02:54:55 AM
Quote3. Black men will do something bad to you if they have the chance.
Really? Why? Again, I grew up in Maine, which is currently the whitest state in the nation. But the first black person I met was a girl who was adopted from Kenya. She was very nice, we actually dated briefly.
Black fear. Duh. Black men are criminals/rapists/drug addicts/vile evil-doers who will murder you as soon as look at you, according to movies, books, TV shows, the news, etc.
We got like three channels up north so I guess I missed all of that stuff. I do remember my Gramps, the WW II vet, saying some awful stuff about "The Japs", but somehow it didn't cause me to think every time I saw a Japanese person that they were going to bomb the fuck out of my boats.
I never had that problem with fat people. And when I say "skinny women", I don't mean people like Shoe Ears, who just have the metabolism of a humming bird, I mean people who are naturally that thin AND have no curves.
It's news (look at how the LA "Riot" was covered), it's CSI (dead, drug-dealing MoC), it's movies (in horror flicks, the useless white girl always lives and PoC die for her), etc.
It's not that you would have learned, necessarily, that Japanese people were going to bomb your boats (and that's a facile example), it's that you could have learned from him that the Japanese are bad, sneaky people.
Quote from: Cainad on December 03, 2012, 03:28:02 AM
Resolving and removing prejudices is not like solving a math problem.
No human being can simply apply their conscious, rational mind and truthfully declare "Having seen the root of this prejudice, I decide that it will not influence my thoughts any more."
Human beings do not possess that degree of control over their brainmeat.
A person CAN, however, consciously realize that their prejudices are irrational/stupid/wrong, and remove as much of that influence as much as possible. It takes time and a willingness to challenge one's instincts and gut reactions.
It's called the Black Iron Prison for a reason.
IAWTC
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 02, 2012, 07:56:34 PM
That's because it felt to me from some of your posts that you agreed with her opinion that everyone is tainted. And I strongly disagree with that sentiment.
"Tainted" is a weird word to use, IMO. Everyone carries preconceptions, misconceptions, and cultural baggage that, if they examine it, is probably contrary to their personal ideals. Anyone who claims they don't is claiming to be a
perfect person, which is something I don't believe is possible, and claiming to be a perfect person seems like a great big enormous warning sign of someone with some kind of massive delusional personality disorder.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 03:30:53 AM
It's not that you would have learned, necessarily, that Japanese people were going to bomb your boats (and that's a facile example), it's that you could have learned from him that the Japanese are bad, sneaky people.
But I didn't. First Japanese person I met was my college roommate, and he was a very cool guy. My only problem with him is that he still wasn't used to the time change and would stay up late playing video games.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2012, 12:27:19 AM
Quote from: holist on December 02, 2012, 08:42:53 PM
It is truly ironic, that a bunch of Americans, whose lands, while much affected by it, were at least largely not visited by the funfair we call World War II, who abandoned us because we were not worth saving from the Soviet variety of fascism, as a little pawn in a large game, and did it again in 1956, insist that I am a "privileged white boy". But do carry on, or ignore me, as you wish.
That's what happens to pawns in international politics. Hungary is a small and unimportant nation, with no irreplaceable resources. Nobody was going to toss a nuclear war over your freedom or lack thereof.
Also, you are STILL stuck on the idea that privilege is a black & white issue, that it's all the same and that you either have it or you don't. This isn't the case.
Yes. Privilege is entirely a shades of gray issue. I have a lot of privilege that others don't have. Others have a lot of privilege that I don't have. My privilege doesn't make me a bad person, it's just something for me to be conscious of when I try to understand where other people are coming from.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 01:19:47 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 12:53:42 AM
^^^ That. Far and away, most of us have some kind of it, but privilege intersects with so many parts of your life (where you're from, your race, gender, sex, religion, ability, sexuality, etc.) that it's to varying degrees. It's an incredibly complex issue.
It's a pointless issue. We can spend our time in self-reflection and self-examination, measuring our prejudice and privilege, or we can just roll up our sleeves and actually try to fix shit. Honestly, speaking from experience, someone who is underprivileged could give a fuck if you're privileged or not, as long as you walk the talk of trying to fix shit.
Fixing shit requires that the fixer looks at themselves, too. They're carrying the problematic memes, too, after all. ETA: as a member of a couple underprivileged groups, I do fucking care if my would-be ally is being problematic or maintaining shitty memes. I care because those memes mean they're treating me poorly BECAUSE of what I am. Which is kinda counterproductive, yes?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 03:38:59 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 03:30:53 AM
It's not that you would have learned, necessarily, that Japanese people were going to bomb your boats (and that's a facile example), it's that you could have learned from him that the Japanese are bad, sneaky people.
But I didn't. First Japanese person I met was my college roommate, and he was a very cool guy. My only problem with him is that he still wasn't used to the time change and would stay up late playing video games.
Congratulations? The point is that there are a million different memes that are really shitty that come from all sorts of sources, and 99.99+% of us have picked up at least some of them. And I highly, highly doubt you're Jesus v2.0/a unicorn.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2012, 02:32:23 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the second coming of Jesus H Christ. :lulz:
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Here before us we have the perfect man; he carries no misconceptions, preconceptions, or misjudgment of his fellow men and women.
Hallelujah!
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 03, 2012, 03:32:49 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 02, 2012, 07:56:34 PM
That's because it felt to me from some of your posts that you agreed with her opinion that everyone is tainted. And I strongly disagree with that sentiment.
"Tainted" is a weird word to use, IMO. Everyone carries preconceptions, misconceptions, and cultural baggage that, if they examine it, is probably contrary to their personal ideals. Anyone who claims they don't is claiming to be a perfect person, which is something I don't believe is possible, and claiming to be a perfect person seems like a great big enormous warning sign of someone with some kind of massive delusional personality disorder.
Eh, I don't agree with that theory at all. I'm far from a perfect person. I mean, we've established I'm a condescending asshole for example. ;)
I'm also clearly not a very good husband.
But, anyway, prejudice, or lack thereof, is only one aspect of a person. So I don't think that is correct.
Quote from: Pæs on December 03, 2012, 02:54:36 AM
Give me an example of an event you're totally unaware of.
:lulz:
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 03, 2012, 03:46:44 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2012, 02:32:23 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the second coming of Jesus H Christ. :lulz:
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Here before us we have the perfect man; he carries no misconceptions, preconceptions, or misjudgment of his fellow men and women.
Hallelujah!
It doesn't take a perfect person to be a fair person.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 03:38:59 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 03:30:53 AM
It's not that you would have learned, necessarily, that Japanese people were going to bomb your boats (and that's a facile example), it's that you could have learned from him that the Japanese are bad, sneaky people.
But I didn't. First Japanese person I met was my college roommate, and he was a very cool guy. My only problem with him is that he still wasn't used to the time change and would stay up late playing video games.
So, what I'm getting from this is that you are extremely sheltered, and you believe that being sheltered means that you have never picked up any misconceptions, preconceptions, or misjudgements of groups of people?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 03:51:49 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 03, 2012, 03:46:44 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2012, 02:32:23 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the second coming of Jesus H Christ. :lulz:
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Here before us we have the perfect man; he carries no misconceptions, preconceptions, or misjudgment of his fellow men and women.
Hallelujah!
It doesn't take a perfect person to be a fair person.
The danger of being convinced that you are perfectly fair and unprejudiced is that it means that if you do have prejudices, say toward potheads or rednecks or rich white women or people who don't wear helmets, you will never be able to see, acknowledge, and repair those aspects of your perception. I am very uncomfortable with people who claim to lack prejudice, because I've never found it to be true, and those people are the most incorrigible in terms of their prejudice because they, secure in their knowledge that they are unprejudiced, believe their prejudices to be objective truth.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 03:48:52 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 03, 2012, 03:32:49 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 02, 2012, 07:56:34 PM
That's because it felt to me from some of your posts that you agreed with her opinion that everyone is tainted. And I strongly disagree with that sentiment.
"Tainted" is a weird word to use, IMO. Everyone carries preconceptions, misconceptions, and cultural baggage that, if they examine it, is probably contrary to their personal ideals. Anyone who claims they don't is claiming to be a perfect person, which is something I don't believe is possible, and claiming to be a perfect person seems like a great big enormous warning sign of someone with some kind of massive delusional personality disorder.
Eh, I don't agree with that theory at all. I'm far from a perfect person. I mean, we've established I'm a condescending asshole for example. ;)
I'm also clearly not a very good husband.
But, anyway, prejudice, or lack thereof, is only one aspect of a person. So I don't think that is correct.
You are talking around the issue.
To be completely free of prejudice is, indeed, to claim a sort of perfection: A perfect ability to be completely uninfluenced by anything that might incline you to think or believe in a certain way, outside of your own rational, conscious mind.
So...
i was thinking about the racism thing, and suddenly it struck me that racism appears to be self reinforcing due to a prisoners dilemma setup in any given encounter. of course, with iterated prisoner's dilemma, then altruistic strategies prevail and you get to have your non race member friends, but with someone you've never met, it isn't iterated and so greedy strategy prevails. (which is exactly what we see)
thinking about it in these terms gives me little hope that racism will ever be overcome to any extent.
it seemed like such a clear description that i googled it looking for analysis of race relations in this context and was surprised not to get any results out of the hat.
perhaps i am overlooking something?
:?
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 03, 2012, 03:53:59 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 03:38:59 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 03:30:53 AM
It's not that you would have learned, necessarily, that Japanese people were going to bomb your boats (and that's a facile example), it's that you could have learned from him that the Japanese are bad, sneaky people.
But I didn't. First Japanese person I met was my college roommate, and he was a very cool guy. My only problem with him is that he still wasn't used to the time change and would stay up late playing video games.
So, what I'm getting from this is that you are extremely sheltered, and you believe that being sheltered means that you have never picked up any misconceptions, preconceptions, or misjudgements of groups of people?
Err, well, not exactly. I WAS fairly sheltered growing up in the respect that where I grew up was fairly monotone as far culture goes. I didn't spend much time absorbing media because we didn't have much media. We played outside. Now, I have classmates who grew up in the same town who are massive judgmental pricks. So maybe for me it was a lucky mixture of nature and nurture? I dunno, I can't completely put my finger on it.
Now, in an odd twist, I did end up living a year in a suburb in So. Jersey. So, by not much of a stretch, there were obviously many new cultures I hadn't interacted with before. Was I apprehensive in my new surroundings? Sure, but meeting new people can be scary when you are a kid. But that was where it came from, the fact they were new, and I was a shy kid. I didn't think they were going to jump me or anything. In fact I found myself bonding with these three black kids in particular. We'd have a great time talking on the bus. It was a fun and exciting year. I even ended up developing a close friendship with this exchange student from Thailand. Good times.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 03, 2012, 03:57:56 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 03:51:49 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 03, 2012, 03:46:44 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2012, 02:32:23 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the second coming of Jesus H Christ. :lulz:
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Here before us we have the perfect man; he carries no misconceptions, preconceptions, or misjudgment of his fellow men and women.
Hallelujah!
It doesn't take a perfect person to be a fair person.
The danger of being convinced that you are perfectly fair and unprejudiced is that it means that if you do have prejudices, say toward potheads or rednecks or rich white women or people who don't wear helmets, you will never be able to see, acknowledge, and repair those aspects of your perception. I am very uncomfortable with people who claim to lack prejudice, because I've never found it to be true, and those people are the most incorrigible in terms of their prejudice because they, secure in their knowledge that they are unprejudiced, believe their prejudices to be objective truth.
Again, I claim no perfection at all, and reject the idea that what I've been talking about infers perfection. I can be perfectly unfair to people, individuals, but not because of what I think they are, but because of how I'm interpreting what they are doing or saying in front of me.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 04:15:33 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 03, 2012, 03:57:56 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 03:51:49 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 03, 2012, 03:46:44 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2012, 02:32:23 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the second coming of Jesus H Christ. :lulz:
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Here before us we have the perfect man; he carries no misconceptions, preconceptions, or misjudgment of his fellow men and women.
Hallelujah!
It doesn't take a perfect person to be a fair person.
The danger of being convinced that you are perfectly fair and unprejudiced is that it means that if you do have prejudices, say toward potheads or rednecks or rich white women or people who don't wear helmets, you will never be able to see, acknowledge, and repair those aspects of your perception. I am very uncomfortable with people who claim to lack prejudice, because I've never found it to be true, and those people are the most incorrigible in terms of their prejudice because they, secure in their knowledge that they are unprejudiced, believe their prejudices to be objective truth.
Again, I claim no perfection at all, and reject the idea that what I've been talking about infers perfection. I can be perfectly unfair to people, individuals, but not because of what I think they are, but because of how I'm interpreting what they are doing or saying in front of me.
(http://i.imgur.com/jm2Vm.jpg)
edit: RWHN's request.
edit 2: RWHN's paranoid request.
This thread is excruciating.
Don't ever change, PD.com.
Quote from: Cainad on December 03, 2012, 04:25:42 AM
This thread is excruciating.
Don't ever change, PD.com.
:mittens:
Quote from: Net on December 03, 2012, 04:21:46 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 04:15:33 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 03, 2012, 03:57:56 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 03:51:49 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 03, 2012, 03:46:44 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2012, 02:32:23 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the second coming of Jesus H Christ. :lulz:
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Here before us we have the perfect man; he carries no misconceptions, preconceptions, or misjudgment of his fellow men and women.
Hallelujah!
It doesn't take a perfect person to be a fair person.
The danger of being convinced that you are perfectly fair and unprejudiced is that it means that if you do have prejudices, say toward potheads or rednecks or rich white women or people who don't wear helmets, you will never be able to see, acknowledge, and repair those aspects of your perception. I am very uncomfortable with people who claim to lack prejudice, because I've never found it to be true, and those people are the most incorrigible in terms of their prejudice because they, secure in their knowledge that they are unprejudiced, believe their prejudices to be objective truth.
Again, I claim no perfection at all, and reject the idea that what I've been talking about infers perfection. I can be perfectly unfair to people, individuals, but not because of what I think they are, but because of how I'm interpreting what they are doing or saying in front of me.
(http://i.imgur.com/c4xjw.gif)
Yeah I kind of feel that way too, with a big, steaming medium-rare helping of wut.
I even have white friends.
:lulz: Yeah, I was noticing that, too.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 03:25:29 AM
I mean, here's the deal, one of the things that drew me to Discordianism is when I read the PD, and came to this section:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/56.php (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/56.php)
Particularily this passage:
Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the ANERISTIC ILLUSION. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.
It was a complete head-nodding experience. Yes! It was something I always felt and knew but had just never saw expressed and laid out that way. And I truly believe there many more out there who hold that same philosophy. Sorry, this looks all funky, my iPad always seems to fuck up when I cut and paste from other sources.
I've noticed that no one has addressed this point.
Because it's not really relevant to the issue at hand? I had a head-noddy moment with it, too, but it has nothing to do with whether or not I've picked up shitty memes.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 05:12:14 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 03:25:29 AM
I mean, here's the deal, one of the things that drew me to Discordianism is when I read the PD, and came to this section:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/56.php (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/56.php)
Particularily this passage:
Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the ANERISTIC ILLUSION. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.
It was a complete head-nodding experience. Yes! It was something I always felt and knew but had just never saw expressed and laid out that way. And I truly believe there many more out there who hold that same philosophy. Sorry, this looks all funky, my iPad always seems to fuck up when I cut and paste from other sources.
I've noticed that no one has addressed this point.
That's because it's not really a point, in regards to the discussion.
Also, a polite request, I no longer post pictures of myself here out of a desire to protect my anonymity for professional and personal reasons. In fact I'll be emptying my photobucket account to ensure anything I have posted is gone. It would be greatly appreciated if the WOMP was removed and my visage deleted from WOMP vaults. I hope that my request will be heeded promptly. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 05:12:14 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 03:25:29 AM
I mean, here's the deal, one of the things that drew me to Discordianism is when I read the PD, and came to this section:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/56.php (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/56.php)
Particularily this passage:
Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the ANERISTIC ILLUSION. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.
It was a complete head-nodding experience. Yes! It was something I always felt and knew but had just never saw expressed and laid out that way. And I truly believe there many more out there who hold that same philosophy. Sorry, this looks all funky, my iPad always seems to fuck up when I cut and paste from other sources.
I've noticed that no one has addressed this point.
What point?
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 05:14:26 AM
Because it's not really relevant to the issue at hand? I had a head-noddy moment with it, too, but it has nothing to do with whether or not I've picked up shitty memes.
I think it is highly relevant to the discussion of prejudice. The idea of different cultures having different reality grids, but that no one set of grids from any one culture is True. So, with that understanding, it would be completely counterintuitive to trade in prejudice.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 05:23:19 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 05:14:26 AM
Because it's not really relevant to the issue at hand? I had a head-noddy moment with it, too, but it has nothing to do with whether or not I've picked up shitty memes.
I think it is highly relevant to the discussion of prejudice. The idea of different cultures having different reality grids, but that no one set of grids from any one culture is True. So, with that understanding, it would be completely counterintuitive to trade in prejudice.
It's relevant to whether a person is *actively* and *intentionally* prejudiced. Passive and unintentional prejudice - those shitty memes - are not particularly related to it.
I actually think that when speaking in terms of prejudice, "shitty memes" is a poor choice of representative words. A prejudice is merely a culturally or personally induced shortcut for thinking about a particular subject. These cognitive shortcuts are actually absolutely invaluable in terms of improving our survival ratio, they are not spurious. But prejudices can be counterproductive, especially when they are embedded in a cultural context where they have no usefulness other than perpetuating inequality.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 03, 2012, 05:18:32 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 05:12:14 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 03:25:29 AM
I mean, here's the deal, one of the things that drew me to Discordianism is when I read the PD, and came to this section:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/56.php (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/56.php)
Particularily this passage:
Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the ANERISTIC ILLUSION. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.
It was a complete head-nodding experience. Yes! It was something I always felt and knew but had just never saw expressed and laid out that way. And I truly believe there many more out there who hold that same philosophy. Sorry, this looks all funky, my iPad always seems to fuck up when I cut and paste from other sources.
I've noticed that no one has addressed this point.
What point?
I think the point was "everywhere I look I see evidence for this belief I hold" but I may have picked up bad signal wrt RWHN from you spags.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2012, 12:27:19 AM
Also, you are STILL stuck on the idea that privilege is a black & white issue, that it's all the same and that you either have it or you don't. This isn't the case.
No, I am not stuck on that issue, and to deflect your loaded statement, neither was I stuck on it, ever. It's your projection. I am fully aware that privilege doesn't pick colours and also that it comes in fine grades. What's your point?
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 01:26:31 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 03, 2012, 01:24:21 AM
^^^ This. I believe you when you say you're committed to equality. I just don't believe you've managed to escape the bad signal totally unscathed.
But the thing is, it is not necessary to be totally unscathed! Being aware of the phenomenon of unconscious prejudice, looking out for it, counteracting it, is enough. Having prejudices is actually just taking action on the basis of insufficient information, something we are forced to do all the time. The question is not whether you have them pesky prejudices, but what you do with them. And there is a healthy minority out there who have learnt to control their prejudices and only use them when no other tool is suitable. They are a minority, but far from unicorns.
Quote from: Pæs on December 03, 2012, 06:12:10 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 03, 2012, 05:18:32 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 05:12:14 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 03:25:29 AM
I mean, here's the deal, one of the things that drew me to Discordianism is when I read the PD, and came to this section:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/56.php (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/56.php)
Particularily this passage:
Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the ANERISTIC ILLUSION. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.
It was a complete head-nodding experience. Yes! It was something I always felt and knew but had just never saw expressed and laid out that way. And I truly believe there many more out there who hold that same philosophy. Sorry, this looks all funky, my iPad always seems to fuck up when I cut and paste from other sources.
I've noticed that no one has addressed this point.
What point?
I think the point was "everywhere I look I see evidence for this belief I hold" but I may have picked up bad signal wrt RWHN from you spags.
Typically that's called confirmation bias, but that still, while relevant to this discussion, seems to hold little connection to the quoted article.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 03:06:20 AM
I've since learned to make an effort to think about my thoughts, words, and reactions.
Well actually, there is still plenty of room for improvement.
Quote from: holist on December 03, 2012, 06:33:58 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 03:06:20 AM
I've since learned to make an effort to think about my thoughts, words, and reactions.
Well actually, there is still plenty of room for improvement.
That is true for almost all people, myself no exception, and I am suspicious of anyone who thinks otherwise of themselves.
Quote from: holist on December 03, 2012, 06:33:58 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 03:06:20 AM
I've since learned to make an effort to think about my thoughts, words, and reactions.
Well actually, there is still plenty of room for improvement.
a) that's implied.
b) fuck off.
Quote from: holist on December 03, 2012, 06:33:58 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 03:06:20 AM
I've since learned to make an effort to think about my thoughts, words, and reactions.
Well actually, there is still plenty of room for improvement.
Do you need to go back in your hole?
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 03, 2012, 03:32:49 AM
Everyone carries preconceptions, misconceptions, and cultural baggage that, if they examine it, is probably contrary to their personal ideals. Anyone who claims they don't is claiming to be a perfect person, which is something I don't believe is possible, and claiming to be a perfect person seems like a great big enormous warning sign of someone with some kind of massive delusional personality disorder.
This is a great post and I am saving it for posterity.
I'm just amused at the part where RWHN is seriously arguing that he doesn't carry any ingrained prejudices around.
I mean, of all the people. :lulz:
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on December 03, 2012, 02:54:55 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 02:49:08 AM
Give me an example of a bad meme you haven't been able to deflect.
1. Strangers are dangerous, way more dangerous than people you already know.
2. Hispanics who wear baggy clothes are gang bangers who will probably shoot you as soon as look at you.
3. Black men will do something bad to you if they have the chance.
There's others probably, but these are the ones I personally am aware of and try my damnedest not to react to. I realize that your comment was directed at Garbo, but you're simply acting like a supercilious, condescending asshole right now.
OK out of curiosities sake I tried this to see if I could identify some of mine, I come from a skewed background though, I went to primary school in London I was the only white lad and the rest of the class were made up of Indian or African descent. Where I worked race creed and gender don't matter it's all about your education level and how much funding you can secure.
So we'll start with that:
The more money you can bring in to the company the more successfull you are as a person.
Higher Level education qualification = better then.
If you are young, you probably don't know what you are doing.
If you are a practicing Catholic your views are probably opposed to mine.
From my perspective, this whole thing is getting muddled.
On the one hand, I think its possible for some (but not all) people to grow up in an environment where specific types of prejudice may not take hold. For example, growing up as a JW instilled in me a very equal view of races because they strongly believe that all races are equal, all made by God and will equally inherit the earth. On the down side, I picked up a very strong prejudice against everyone else in the world that wasn't a JW. All you worldly women just want to take my virginity and you men want top addict me to drugs! Not to mention the orgies and Dungeons and Dragons!
I mean, when I interact with people race doesn't seem to affect my viewpoint of the person nearly as much as a cross around their neck, christian idioms in their speech or any behaviors that label them as Christendom (the worst of the worldly people in the JW universe). I find that I am immediately distrustful of some overt Christian individual, compared to almost anyone else.
I think we all have prejudices, they aren't all the same particular kind of Horrible... but it seems very unlikely to survive this existence without picking some up.
However, at the same time, the 'programming' issue seems to be the same issue that the OP is ranting about. That is while a tribe of people that pick up an Cause may have some really good ideas and intent, they also likely have some bad/dumb/brken programs as well. The flaw seems to be that many times people have a hard time separating 'agreement on a good idea' and 'agreement of my whole reality tunnel'.
For example, I am embarrassed when I see Native American graphics being used sell shit that has nothing to do with Native Americans (Lucky Strike, American Spirit, the various sports teams etc). As Purpleeris said, sticking their head on a cigarette pack is as repulsive as sticking the head of someone you killed on a stake and dancing around with it.
I find snake oil salesmen repulsive, no matter what they're selling (faith healing, sweat lodges, ancient Chinese medicine). But, my dislike for them lies not in the exploitation of a culture, but in the exploitation of the rubes.
I think that there are many points that I would agree with Nigel and Garbo on, about the general topic, but I differ in some of the details (cause we all have different reality grids/tunnels). Therein lies the huge flaw in various activist causes. It generally starts with a Big Tent and ends with a Tea Party. :lulz:
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 05:28:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 05:23:19 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 05:14:26 AM
Because it's not really relevant to the issue at hand? I had a head-noddy moment with it, too, but it has nothing to do with whether or not I've picked up shitty memes.
I think it is highly relevant to the discussion of prejudice. The idea of different cultures having different reality grids, but that no one set of grids from any one culture is True. So, with that understanding, it would be completely counterintuitive to trade in prejudice.
It's relevant to whether a person is *actively* and *intentionally* prejudiced. Passive and unintentional prejudice - those shitty memes - are not particularly related to it.
Sure it is, if one holds as a core value equality and fairness to all peoples, then one would actively identify and reject signal which would cause one to make irrational judgements.
Quote from: Net on December 03, 2012, 04:21:46 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 04:15:33 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 03, 2012, 03:57:56 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 03:51:49 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 03, 2012, 03:46:44 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2012, 02:32:23 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the second coming of Jesus H Christ. :lulz:
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Here before us we have the perfect man; he carries no misconceptions, preconceptions, or misjudgment of his fellow men and women.
Hallelujah!
It doesn't take a perfect person to be a fair person.
The danger of being convinced that you are perfectly fair and unprejudiced is that it means that if you do have prejudices, say toward potheads or rednecks or rich white women or people who don't wear helmets, you will never be able to see, acknowledge, and repair those aspects of your perception. I am very uncomfortable with people who claim to lack prejudice, because I've never found it to be true, and those people are the most incorrigible in terms of their prejudice because they, secure in their knowledge that they are unprejudiced, believe their prejudices to be objective truth.
Again, I claim no perfection at all, and reject the idea that what I've been talking about infers perfection. I can be perfectly unfair to people, individuals, but not because of what I think they are, but because of how I'm interpreting what they are doing or saying in front of me.
edit: RWHN's request.
Not good enough Net. Delete it now.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 05:17:55 AM
Also, a polite request, I no longer post pictures of myself here out of a desire to protect my anonymity for professional and personal reasons. In fact I'll be emptying my photobucket account to ensure anything I have posted is gone. It would be greatly appreciated if the WOMP was removed and my visage deleted from WOMP vaults. I hope that my request will be heeded promptly. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Done.
It's gonna fuck up Twid's comic, though. That was the funniest scene in the whole damn thing.
Quote from: Pæs on December 03, 2012, 02:54:36 AM
Give me an example of an event you're totally unaware of.
Coyote's tomohawks.
nobody? :sad:
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 03, 2012, 04:04:59 AM
So...
i was thinking about the racism thing, and suddenly it struck me that racism appears to be self reinforcing due to a prisoners dilemma setup in any given encounter. of course, with iterated prisoner's dilemma, then altruistic strategies prevail and you get to have your non race member friends, but with someone you've never met, it isn't iterated and so greedy strategy prevails. (which is exactly what we see)
thinking about it in these terms gives me little hope that racism will ever be overcome to any extent.
it seemed like such a clear description that i googled it looking for analysis of race relations in this context and was surprised not to get any results out of the hat.
perhaps i am overlooking something?
:?
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 03, 2012, 02:35:57 PM
nobody? :sad:
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 03, 2012, 04:04:59 AM
So...
i was thinking about the racism thing, and suddenly it struck me that racism appears to be self reinforcing due to a prisoners dilemma setup in any given encounter. of course, with iterated prisoner's dilemma, then altruistic strategies prevail and you get to have your non race member friends, but with someone you've never met, it isn't iterated and so greedy strategy prevails. (which is exactly what we see)
thinking about it in these terms gives me little hope that racism will ever be overcome to any extent.
it seemed like such a clear description that i googled it looking for analysis of race relations in this context and was surprised not to get any results out of the hat.
perhaps i am overlooking something?
:?
I think you're reading too much into it, myself. I think it's just plain old xenophobia and pecking order shit.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 03, 2012, 02:35:57 PM
nobody? :sad:
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 03, 2012, 04:04:59 AM
So...
i was thinking about the racism thing, and suddenly it struck me that racism appears to be self reinforcing due to a prisoners dilemma setup in any given encounter. of course, with iterated prisoner's dilemma, then altruistic strategies prevail and you get to have your non race member friends, but with someone you've never met, it isn't iterated and so greedy strategy prevails. (which is exactly what we see)
thinking about it in these terms gives me little hope that racism will ever be overcome to any extent.
it seemed like such a clear description that i googled it looking for analysis of race relations in this context and was surprised not to get any results out of the hat.
perhaps i am overlooking something?
:?
It's an interesting notion. But the thing is: if your prejudice puts all black people in the same box, should I consider my encounters with black strangers to be separate, individual non-iterated prisoner's dilemma games? (side note: PD: prisoner's dilemma! - that can't have been intentional, but it's great!) Or (given the assumption that the prejudice does not differentiate), should I consider those encounters to be a single iterated prisoner's dilemma game between me and "black people"? Because in the latter case, tit-for-tat should still be the best simple, robust strategy... and I guess this is a fairly good description of the difference between "prejudice allowed to take control when it shouldn't" (each one is a separate game, so defection is the best strategy), and prejudice recognised and kept under control (it's an iterated series of games, tit-for-tat is best).
Roger,
i don't know if it's really looking too deeply. it's just an examination of the choice one has in an encounter with someone of a different race where there is already a social history of oppression. each person has two choices, and the decision grid seems to me to have the preference order that defines the prisoner's dilemma.
i was really surprised that i didn't immediately find anything regarding this by a quick search.
holist,
no. you're having an encounter with an individual, and there is no previous history with them. the person you meet on the street doesn't know that you've been altruistic in the past. or he doesn't know that you're employing any given strategy as an individual.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 03, 2012, 04:27:52 PM
holist,
no. you're having an encounter with an individual, and there is no previous history with them. the person you meet on the street doesn't know that you've been altruistic in the past. or he doesn't know that you're employing any given strategy as an individual.
Yes, but if you are acting on prejudice, it is arguable that you are not having an encounter with an individual. You are having an encounter with "black people" - and indeed, you do have a previous history with them. Of course the person in the street is not going to know about that previous history I have with their race... part of why action based on prejudice often doesn't work (achieve the desired end).
Somebody shut that guy the fuck up. Jesus H. FUCK.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 03, 2012, 05:02:21 PM
Somebody shut that guy the fuck up. Jesus H. FUCK.
Sounds like SOMEONE has a case of the
Mondays HORRIBLE HICK TOWN IN HORRIBLE HICK STATE, THEN EXPOSED TO FOREIGN VERSION OF THE SAME THING.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2012, 05:06:45 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 03, 2012, 05:02:21 PM
Somebody shut that guy the fuck up. Jesus H. FUCK.
Sounds like SOMEONE has a case of the Mondays HORRIBLE HICK TOWN IN HORRIBLE HICK STATE, THEN EXPOSED TO FOREIGN VERSION OF THE SAME THING.
Yeah. It's supposed to something you can LEAVE. :horrormirth:
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 03, 2012, 05:09:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2012, 05:06:45 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 03, 2012, 05:02:21 PM
Somebody shut that guy the fuck up. Jesus H. FUCK.
Sounds like SOMEONE has a case of the Mondays HORRIBLE HICK TOWN IN HORRIBLE HICK STATE, THEN EXPOSED TO FOREIGN VERSION OF THE SAME THING.
Yeah. It's supposed to something you can LEAVE. :horrormirth:
You need to find a stronger gravitational pull.
Tucson
Portland
Providence
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2012, 05:13:34 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 03, 2012, 05:09:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2012, 05:06:45 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 03, 2012, 05:02:21 PM
Somebody shut that guy the fuck up. Jesus H. FUCK.
Sounds like SOMEONE has a case of the Mondays HORRIBLE HICK TOWN IN HORRIBLE HICK STATE, THEN EXPOSED TO FOREIGN VERSION OF THE SAME THING.
Yeah. It's supposed to something you can LEAVE. :horrormirth:
You need to find a stronger gravitational pull.
Tucson
Portland
Providence
I take the lastest near-inability to get out of Austin as a SIGN. "DON'T GO BACK THERE."
If I wasn't worried about my dog, I wouldn't have. Fuck it.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 03, 2012, 05:15:39 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2012, 05:13:34 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 03, 2012, 05:09:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2012, 05:06:45 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 03, 2012, 05:02:21 PM
Somebody shut that guy the fuck up. Jesus H. FUCK.
Sounds like SOMEONE has a case of the Mondays HORRIBLE HICK TOWN IN HORRIBLE HICK STATE, THEN EXPOSED TO FOREIGN VERSION OF THE SAME THING.
Yeah. It's supposed to something you can LEAVE. :horrormirth:
You need to find a stronger gravitational pull.
Tucson
Portland
Providence
I take the lastest near-inability to get out of Austin as a SIGN. "DON'T GO BACK THERE."
If I wasn't worried about my dog, I wouldn't have. Fuck it.
Get dog & daughter. Run like hell.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2012, 05:16:41 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 03, 2012, 05:15:39 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2012, 05:13:34 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 03, 2012, 05:09:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2012, 05:06:45 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 03, 2012, 05:02:21 PM
Somebody shut that guy the fuck up. Jesus H. FUCK.
Sounds like SOMEONE has a case of the Mondays HORRIBLE HICK TOWN IN HORRIBLE HICK STATE, THEN EXPOSED TO FOREIGN VERSION OF THE SAME THING.
Yeah. It's supposed to something you can LEAVE. :horrormirth:
You need to find a stronger gravitational pull.
Tucson
Portland
Providence
I take the lastest near-inability to get out of Austin as a SIGN. "DON'T GO BACK THERE."
If I wasn't worried about my dog, I wouldn't have. Fuck it.
Get dog & daughter. Run like hell.
Gotcha.
Shopping list: Pet carrier.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 10:58:52 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 05:28:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 05:23:19 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 05:14:26 AM
Because it's not really relevant to the issue at hand? I had a head-noddy moment with it, too, but it has nothing to do with whether or not I've picked up shitty memes.
I think it is highly relevant to the discussion of prejudice. The idea of different cultures having different reality grids, but that no one set of grids from any one culture is True. So, with that understanding, it would be completely counterintuitive to trade in prejudice.
It's relevant to whether a person is *actively* and *intentionally* prejudiced. Passive and unintentional prejudice - those shitty memes - are not particularly related to it.
Sure it is, if one holds as a core value equality and fairness to all peoples, then one would actively identify and reject signal which would cause one to make irrational judgements.
Uh huh...that's half the point I've been making the entire time. The other half is that a person doesn't always notice they have those bad signals until it's either pointed out to them or they learn to examine their grid.
I wonder if he is aware of the irony intent in denying he had prejudices?
Not to bring up the stupid purse thing again, but it is an honest question, as it is something that comes to my mind time and again:
I know I'm not perfect, but I do make a concerted effort not to judge people beyond any personal interactions I may have with them.
That said, I do clutch/readjust my purse when someone I don't know walks by, regardless of race. But I've found myself feeling bad for it when it's a person of color. Obviously that person doesn't know that's how I react to everyone and that it's not out of Black/Hispanic/etc. fear. I usually try to look up and smile, regardless of who it is, because also really like being friendly to people. Mixed signals, I know.
I don't know, I guess what I'm saying is what do I do/how am I supposed to let someone know that I'm reacting to them not because of what they look like, but because I don't know them?
Quote from: American Jackal on December 03, 2012, 06:03:26 PM
I wonder if he is aware of the irony intent in denying he had prejudices?
I suspect not.
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on December 03, 2012, 06:10:35 PM
Not to bring up the stupid purse thing again, but it is an honest question, as it is something that comes to my mind time and again:
I know I'm not perfect, but I do make a concerted effort not to judge people beyond any personal interactions I may have with them.
That said, I do clutch/readjust my purse when someone I don't know walks by, regardless of race. But I've found myself feeling bad for it when it's a person of color. Obviously that person doesn't know that's how I react to everyone and that it's not out of Black/Hispanic/etc. fear. I usually try to look up and smile, regardless of who it is, because also really like being friendly to people. Mixed signals, I know.
I don't know, I guess what I'm saying is what do I do/how am I supposed to let someone know that I'm reacting to them not because of what they look like, but because I don't know them?
The smiling helps, I imagine, as long as you don't look excessively nervous.
The thing about prejudice is that that's largely how your brain works. Burn fingers in fire = prejudiced against burning your fingers in fire. What is generally called prejudice in threads like this is not the totality of prejudice (which helps us survive) but bad-signal prejudice, which is patently bullshit. These kind of things should be getting revised all the time. If you get stuck with one, it becomes a phobia. Congratulations - you've just moved one step closer to full retard. Your brain is bent.
FTR - I used to be racist, on account of I was brought up that way. Racism was hardly an issue, tho, given that the only race I ever came into contact with was white. I was also sectarianist. That was a bit more serious. That got me into a serious fuckton of fights for no reason other than the other guy was a "dirty fenian bastard". I grew out of these prejudces. Just like some people do and some people don't. Oh, yeah, a lot of it is buried deep, like layers of an onion but it's no big thing to get rid of them and replace them with prejudices that work (for now) the system is designed with a certain amount of fluidity built in.
Someone accusing me of having a bunch of lameass prejudices built in, that I'm not aware of, is likely to illicit a very mocking response. It's condescending, it's wrong and if whoever decides to dig their heels in and preach at me about soci-fucking-ology (of all things) There is going to be very little recourse to my taking their bullshit seriously, in the slightest.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 03, 2012, 06:19:11 PM
The thing about prejudice is that that's largely how your brain works. Burn fingers in fire = prejudiced against burning your fingers in fire. What is generally called prejudice in threads like this is not the totality of prejudice (which helps us survive) but bad-signal prejudice, which is patently bullshit. These kind of things should be getting revised all the time. If you get stuck with one, it becomes a phobia. Congratulations - you've just moved one step closer to full retard. Your brain is bent.
Sort of like "faith fools"? :pokewithstick:
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 03, 2012, 06:15:33 PM
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on December 03, 2012, 06:10:35 PM
Not to bring up the stupid purse thing again, but it is an honest question, as it is something that comes to my mind time and again:
I know I'm not perfect, but I do make a concerted effort not to judge people beyond any personal interactions I may have with them.
That said, I do clutch/readjust my purse when someone I don't know walks by, regardless of race. But I've found myself feeling bad for it when it's a person of color. Obviously that person doesn't know that's how I react to everyone and that it's not out of Black/Hispanic/etc. fear. I usually try to look up and smile, regardless of who it is, because also really like being friendly to people. Mixed signals, I know.
I don't know, I guess what I'm saying is what do I do/how am I supposed to let someone know that I'm reacting to them not because of what they look like, but because I don't know them?
The smiling helps, I imagine, as long as you don't look excessively nervous.
No, the smile is genuine. And despite the knee-jerk reaction, I rarely feel very nervous or believe that EVERY person I walk by is going to mug me. Despite my distrust of people, I genuinely like to be nice and see people happy. I do attempt to make at least brief eyecontact, with anyone, since that's also something I have a hard time with, sometimes/even with people I know. And I'm sure a smile with averted eyes gives a nervous impression, even if the nervousness is for a different reason. So unless I'm in a mood, I try to give most people a smile and brief friendly eyecontact before going about my business.
I don't know about white guilt, but I'm sure as fuck starting to feel "perpetuating these kind of threads" guilt.
Quote from: Cain on December 03, 2012, 06:26:47 PM
I don't know about white guilt, but I'm sure as fuck starting to feel "perpetuating these kind of threads" guilt.
what, you don't have faith that we can
resolve these issues?
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 03, 2012, 06:30:14 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 03, 2012, 06:26:47 PM
I don't know about white guilt, but I'm sure as fuck starting to feel "perpetuating these kind of threads" guilt.
what, you don't have faith that we can resolve these issues?
If it ain't resolved in 9 pages, it isn't going to get resolved. Instead, you get Holist coming in and mangling the language making non-arguments, and people piping up to tell you how THEY'RE pure and clean or that everyone else BUT them are fucked up.
Personally, I enjoy these threads, in the same manner that I have a deep appreciation for train wrecks, car accidents, and those idiots who try to "shred" their skateboards on handrails (with the inevitable results).
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 03, 2012, 06:30:14 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 03, 2012, 06:26:47 PM
I don't know about white guilt, but I'm sure as fuck starting to feel "perpetuating these kind of threads" guilt.
what, you don't have faith that we can resolve these issues?
I am fairly confident if PD came up with an actionable plan on anything more ambitious than trolling a minor forum, the universe would implode from disbelief.
Quote from: Cain on December 03, 2012, 06:34:59 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 03, 2012, 06:30:14 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 03, 2012, 06:26:47 PM
I don't know about white guilt, but I'm sure as fuck starting to feel "perpetuating these kind of threads" guilt.
what, you don't have faith that we can resolve these issues?
I am fairly confident if PD came up with an actionable plan on anything more ambitious than trolling a minor forum, the universe would implode from disbelief.
And while we can PLAN that trolling, we can't actually seem to DO it. In practice, it's like watching Lucy hold the football for Charley Brown, where Charley Brown is the guy who actually GOES and Lucy is everyone else that SAID they'd go.
Quote from: Cain on December 03, 2012, 06:34:59 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 03, 2012, 06:30:14 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 03, 2012, 06:26:47 PM
I don't know about white guilt, but I'm sure as fuck starting to feel "perpetuating these kind of threads" guilt.
what, you don't have faith that we can resolve these issues?
I am fairly confident if PD came up with an actionable plan on anything more ambitious than trolling a minor forum, the universe would implode from disbelief.
Hey, that's not fair. We managed to nut out a fairly robust e-democracy blueprint, if I remember correctly.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2012, 06:36:31 PM
And while we can PLAN that trolling, we can't actually seem to DO it. In practice, it's like watching Lucy hold the football for Charley Brown, where Charley Brown is the guy who actually GOES and Lucy is everyone else that SAID they'd go.
Yup. I am of the opinion that we cannot do that effectively, discussions about far more complex and difficult issues ain't really gonna go anywhere.
Quote from: Pæs on December 03, 2012, 06:38:08 PM
Hey, that's not fair. We managed to nut out a fairly robust e-democracy blueprint, if I remember correctly.
:lulz: Ah, fictionpuss. EB&G was to e-democracy as postwar Iraq was to actual democracy. Good times.
Quote from: chimes on December 03, 2012, 08:03:16 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 03, 2012, 03:32:49 AM
Everyone carries preconceptions, misconceptions, and cultural baggage that, if they examine it, is probably contrary to their personal ideals. Anyone who claims they don't is claiming to be a perfect person, which is something I don't believe is possible, and claiming to be a perfect person seems like a great big enormous warning sign of someone with some kind of massive delusional personality disorder.
This is a great post and I am saving it for posterity.
Thank you!
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 11:01:10 AM
Quote from: Net on December 03, 2012, 04:21:46 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 04:15:33 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 03, 2012, 03:57:56 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 03, 2012, 03:51:49 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 03, 2012, 03:46:44 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2012, 02:32:23 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the second coming of Jesus H Christ. :lulz:
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Here before us we have the perfect man; he carries no misconceptions, preconceptions, or misjudgment of his fellow men and women.
Hallelujah!
It doesn't take a perfect person to be a fair person.
The danger of being convinced that you are perfectly fair and unprejudiced is that it means that if you do have prejudices, say toward potheads or rednecks or rich white women or people who don't wear helmets, you will never be able to see, acknowledge, and repair those aspects of your perception. I am very uncomfortable with people who claim to lack prejudice, because I've never found it to be true, and those people are the most incorrigible in terms of their prejudice because they, secure in their knowledge that they are unprejudiced, believe their prejudices to be objective truth.
Again, I claim no perfection at all, and reject the idea that what I've been talking about infers perfection. I can be perfectly unfair to people, individuals, but not because of what I think they are, but because of how I'm interpreting what they are doing or saying in front of me.
edit: RWHN's request.
Not good enough Net. Delete it now.
Technically, you gave up the rights to it once you posted it here originally. So while Net might be feeling magnanimous, he doesn't HAVE to bow to your inability to laugh at yourself.
Technically, people can be assholes, or maybe they could understand someone is going through a personal issue, put their butthurt behind them, and do the right thing.
But, I guess we know which camp you are in, good to know.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 04, 2012, 06:29:50 PM
Technically, people can be assholes, or maybe they could understand someone is going through a personal issue, put their butthurt behind them, and do the right thing.
But, I guess we know which camp you are in, good to know.
I seem to remember being lectured by you when my father was being harrassed by Uncle BadTouch's crew recently. Some sanctimonious shit about how if you put shit up on the internet, anything that happens is your own fault and you have to live with it.
I have erased your pic because, frankly, I don't really want it for WOMPing. But watching you come in here 2 weeks after delivering the above-mentioned lecture is hilarious.
Cry me a fucking river if Net won't erase it.
Ah, here we are: RWHN's response to my being angry about my dad being doorstepped by Uncle BadTouch's crew.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 16, 2012, 11:40:08 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 16, 2012, 03:04:16 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 16, 2012, 02:25:45 AM
Being the pessimistic cynic I am when it comes to the internet, my guess is that the only true way to protect your information from stalkers on the internet is to not post it on the internet.
HEY...
Fuck off.
Not trying to be difficult, but the reality is, if someone REALLY wants to find stuff, and has even a reasonable amount of internet skills, they will find it. I could care less about what switches get turned on or off here, but if the goal is to keep a committed stalker (read: completely obsessive) at bay, it's not going to stop them.
All they have to do is make an account and lurk, or not act as an obvious jackass.
It's why I am VERY protective of information. There's a reason only two people on this site know my real name, it's why I don't post pics anymore, it's why I've not posted info about my education.
The fewer crumbs we leave the less likely someone we don't want finding us, will find us.
Eat a dick.
But he's going through a DIVORCE and it could cost him MONEY!
:boring:
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 04, 2012, 06:54:28 PM
But he's going through a DIVORCE and it could cost him MONEY!
:boring:
And it's all her fault, of course.
Also, what happened to me could have cost my father his remaining health, and RWHN gave a condescending snicker. FUCK HIM.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 04, 2012, 06:50:57 PM
Ah, here we are: RWHN's response to my being angry about my dad being doorstepped by Uncle BadTouch's crew.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 16, 2012, 11:40:08 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 16, 2012, 03:04:16 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 16, 2012, 02:25:45 AM
Being the pessimistic cynic I am when it comes to the internet, my guess is that the only true way to protect your information from stalkers on the internet is to not post it on the internet.
HEY...
Fuck off.
Not trying to be difficult, but the reality is, if someone REALLY wants to find stuff, and has even a reasonable amount of internet skills, they will find it. I could care less about what switches get turned on or off here, but if the goal is to keep a committed stalker (read: completely obsessive) at bay, it's not going to stop them.
All they have to do is make an account and lurk, or not act as an obvious jackass.
It's why I am VERY protective of information. There's a reason only two people on this site know my real name, it's why I don't post pics anymore, it's why I've not posted info about my education.
The fewer crumbs we leave the less likely someone we don't want finding us, will find us.
Eat a dick.
Bump for Twid.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 04, 2012, 07:04:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 04, 2012, 06:50:57 PM
Ah, here we are: RWHN's response to my being angry about my dad being doorstepped by Uncle BadTouch's crew.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 16, 2012, 11:40:08 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 16, 2012, 03:04:16 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 16, 2012, 02:25:45 AM
Being the pessimistic cynic I am when it comes to the internet, my guess is that the only true way to protect your information from stalkers on the internet is to not post it on the internet.
HEY...
Fuck off.
Not trying to be difficult, but the reality is, if someone REALLY wants to find stuff, and has even a reasonable amount of internet skills, they will find it. I could care less about what switches get turned on or off here, but if the goal is to keep a committed stalker (read: completely obsessive) at bay, it's not going to stop them.
All they have to do is make an account and lurk, or not act as an obvious jackass.
It's why I am VERY protective of information. There's a reason only two people on this site know my real name, it's why I don't post pics anymore, it's why I've not posted info about my education.
The fewer crumbs we leave the less likely someone we don't want finding us, will find us.
Eat a dick.
Bump for Twid.
Fair, but hypocritical or not, he is asking not to use place holders. For some mysterious reason.
And while I think he should apologize to you, especially where he's in a position to be more sympathetic about it now, I don't want my comic to be used as a means of turning RWHN's statements around on him. It's supposed to be a fun thing.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 04, 2012, 06:50:57 PM
Ah, here we are: RWHN's response to my being angry about my dad being doorstepped by Uncle BadTouch's crew.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 16, 2012, 11:40:08 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 16, 2012, 03:04:16 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 16, 2012, 02:25:45 AM
Being the pessimistic cynic I am when it comes to the internet, my guess is that the only true way to protect your information from stalkers on the internet is to not post it on the internet.
HEY...
Fuck off.
Not trying to be difficult, but the reality is, if someone REALLY wants to find stuff, and has even a reasonable amount of internet skills, they will find it. I could care less about what switches get turned on or off here, but if the goal is to keep a committed stalker (read: completely obsessive) at bay, it's not going to stop them.
All they have to do is make an account and lurk, or not act as an obvious jackass.
It's why I am VERY protective of information. There's a reason only two people on this site know my real name, it's why I don't post pics anymore, it's why I've not posted info about my education.
The fewer crumbs we leave the less likely someone we don't want finding us, will find us.
Eat a dick.
a) I still think that is legitimate advice, hence why I have decided the pictures I've posted here are putting too many crumbs on the ground and want to get rid of them.
b) At this point that I had entered that thread I didn't have the back-story about your Dad and didn't realize that happened and was a crux of the conversation. Had I realized that I would have been a little more artful about my advice. So I apologize for that but I still believe in the philosophy of the less you put on the internet the better.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on December 04, 2012, 07:10:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 04, 2012, 07:04:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 04, 2012, 06:50:57 PM
Ah, here we are: RWHN's response to my being angry about my dad being doorstepped by Uncle BadTouch's crew.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 16, 2012, 11:40:08 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 16, 2012, 03:04:16 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 16, 2012, 02:25:45 AM
Being the pessimistic cynic I am when it comes to the internet, my guess is that the only true way to protect your information from stalkers on the internet is to not post it on the internet.
HEY...
Fuck off.
Not trying to be difficult, but the reality is, if someone REALLY wants to find stuff, and has even a reasonable amount of internet skills, they will find it. I could care less about what switches get turned on or off here, but if the goal is to keep a committed stalker (read: completely obsessive) at bay, it's not going to stop them.
All they have to do is make an account and lurk, or not act as an obvious jackass.
It's why I am VERY protective of information. There's a reason only two people on this site know my real name, it's why I don't post pics anymore, it's why I've not posted info about my education.
The fewer crumbs we leave the less likely someone we don't want finding us, will find us.
Eat a dick.
Bump for Twid.
Fair, but hypocritical or not, he is asking not to use place holders. For some mysterious reason.
And while I think he should apologize to you, especially where he's in a position to be more sympathetic about it now, I don't want my comic to be used as a means of turning RWHN's statements around on him. It's supposed to be a fun thing.
This is why I stayed away from your comic thread with this business.
But believe me, I am just sopping with sympathy for his knackered up ass. Boo hoo. I may write
The Times.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 04, 2012, 07:33:02 PM
b) At this point that I had entered that thread I didn't have the back-story about your Dad and didn't realize that happened and was a crux of the conversation. Had I realized that I would have been a little more artful about my advice. So I apologize for that but I still believe in the philosophy of the less you put on the internet the better.
Um, RHWN, the thread that was in was about stalkers, etc, in direct response to my dad being doorstepped, which was hardly a secret by that point.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 04, 2012, 06:58:41 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 04, 2012, 06:54:28 PM
But he's going through a DIVORCE and it could cost him MONEY!
:boring:
And it's all her fault, of course.
Also, what happened to me could have cost my father his remaining health, and RWHN gave a condescending snicker. FUCK HIM.
Yeah. I'd way rather get hit in the wallet than lose a dad.
I reviewed the thread and there was no mention of your father whatsoever leading up to my post. I don't know if you've noticed, but I don't exactly come around as often as I do so I don't read every single fucking thread started. I had no idea what was going on with your dad, which, is why when you brought it up in that thread, I dropped the conversation and stopped posting in the thread. Sorry I missed that, but I just can't be here all the fucking time to keep up with all of the story lines.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 04, 2012, 07:39:52 PM
I reviewed the thread and there was no mention of your father whatsoever leading up to my post. I don't know if you've noticed, but I don't exactly come around as often as I do so I don't read every single fucking thread started. I had no idea what was going on with your dad, which, is why when you brought it up in that thread, I dropped the conversation and stopped posting in the thread. Sorry I missed that, but I just can't be here all the fucking time to keep up with all of the story lines.
Oh, no sweat. Leaving it like that was perfectly reasonable and caused no hard feelings at all.
Sympathetically yours,
TGRR
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 04, 2012, 07:33:44 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on December 04, 2012, 07:10:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 04, 2012, 07:04:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 04, 2012, 06:50:57 PM
Ah, here we are: RWHN's response to my being angry about my dad being doorstepped by Uncle BadTouch's crew.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 16, 2012, 11:40:08 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 16, 2012, 03:04:16 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 16, 2012, 02:25:45 AM
Being the pessimistic cynic I am when it comes to the internet, my guess is that the only true way to protect your information from stalkers on the internet is to not post it on the internet.
HEY...
Fuck off.
Not trying to be difficult, but the reality is, if someone REALLY wants to find stuff, and has even a reasonable amount of internet skills, they will find it. I could care less about what switches get turned on or off here, but if the goal is to keep a committed stalker (read: completely obsessive) at bay, it's not going to stop them.
All they have to do is make an account and lurk, or not act as an obvious jackass.
It's why I am VERY protective of information. There's a reason only two people on this site know my real name, it's why I don't post pics anymore, it's why I've not posted info about my education.
The fewer crumbs we leave the less likely someone we don't want finding us, will find us.
Eat a dick.
Bump for Twid.
Fair, but hypocritical or not, he is asking not to use place holders. For some mysterious reason.
And while I think he should apologize to you, especially where he's in a position to be more sympathetic about it now, I don't want my comic to be used as a means of turning RWHN's statements around on him. It's supposed to be a fun thing.
This is why I stayed away from your comic thread with this business.
But believe me, I am just sopping with sympathy for his knackered up ass. Boo hoo. I may write The Times.
Appreciated. Anyway, that's pretty much the only place where I had any womps for him planned so it's a moot point really on my end.
The way arguments evolve here, sometimes it's better to just SHUT UP, so that was the way I decided to handle that one. At the time, it seemed like the best thing to do. Obviously not, I'm sorry for that, but I can't go back in time. But by all means, you and your texan friend there should continue to psychoanalyze my marriage. You seem to be getting a real thrill out of it. Good for you!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 04, 2012, 06:32:48 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 04, 2012, 06:29:50 PM
Technically, people can be assholes, or maybe they could understand someone is going through a personal issue, put their butthurt behind them, and do the right thing.
But, I guess we know which camp you are in, good to know.
I seem to remember being lectured by you when my father was being harrassed by Uncle BadTouch's crew recently. Some sanctimonious shit about how if you put shit up on the internet, anything that happens is your own fault and you have to live with it.
I have erased your pic because, frankly, I don't really want it for WOMPing. But watching you come in here 2 weeks after delivering the above-mentioned lecture is hilarious.
Cry me a fucking river if Net won't erase it.
Yeah, pretty much all of this. Apparently, RWHN has some ingrained prejudice against not being a hypocrite. :lulz:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 04, 2012, 07:46:26 PM
The way arguments evolve here, sometimes it's better to just SHUT UP, so that was the way I decided to handle that one. At the time, it seemed like the best thing to do. Obviously not, I'm sorry for that, but I can't go back in time. But by all means, you and your texan friend there should continue to psychoanalyze my marriage. You seem to be getting a real thrill out of it. Good for you!
Just returning a little schadenfreude, pal.
The difference is I didn't know about your situation until you mentioned it. And when I WAS aware of it, I stopped talking and didn't go on to throw more fuel on the fire and draw in reinforcements.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 04, 2012, 08:01:13 PM
The difference is I didn't know about your situation until you mentioned it. And when I WAS aware of it, I stopped talking and didn't go on to throw more fuel on the fire and draw in reinforcements.
1. I didn't draw in reinforcements. Oh, wait. Did you mean my mind lazors or some shit?
2. It was basically impossible to be on PD at that time period without hearing about it, and
3. It was an asshole thing to say under any circumstances. It was a fucking condescending pat on the fucking head.
I missed massive chunks of time here and I knew about it...
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 04, 2012, 08:02:30 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 04, 2012, 08:01:13 PM
The difference is I didn't know about your situation until you mentioned it. And when I WAS aware of it, I stopped talking and didn't go on to throw more fuel on the fire and draw in reinforcements.
1. I didn't draw in reinforcements. Oh, wait. Did you mean my mind lazors or some shit?
2. It was basically impossible to be on PD at that time period without hearing about it, and
3. It was an asshole thing to say under any circumstances. It was a fucking condescending pat on the fucking head.
You're wasting your time. RWHN is a unicorn, and as such he can do no wrong. If you think something he did was wrong, you just need to adjust your moral compass until it matches his default settings.
:lulz:
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 04, 2012, 08:05:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 04, 2012, 08:02:30 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 04, 2012, 08:01:13 PM
The difference is I didn't know about your situation until you mentioned it. And when I WAS aware of it, I stopped talking and didn't go on to throw more fuel on the fire and draw in reinforcements.
1. I didn't draw in reinforcements. Oh, wait. Did you mean my mind lazors or some shit?
2. It was basically impossible to be on PD at that time period without hearing about it, and
3. It was an asshole thing to say under any circumstances. It was a fucking condescending pat on the fucking head.
You're wasting your time. RWHN is a unicorn, and as such he can do no wrong. If you think something he did was wrong, you just need to adjust your moral compass until it matches his default settings.
Right on. I happen to have a 55 gallon barrel of a sarcasm/irony mix out back.
Let me reboot my ethics, see what happens.
Let's see:
"I'm concerned about stalkers."
"You shouldn't have put personal info on the internet."
HELLO, CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!
No, that's not it. Let me try again.
"I'm concerned about stalkers."
"Just live with a complete fortress mentality."
No, now I'm way off base.
"I'm concerned about stalkers."
"You shouldn't have put PI on the interbutts." *sneer* "Oh, wait, let me pull mine down."
"You're a fuckhead."
Nope. Still not it.
Oh, hang on:
"I'm concerned about stalkers."
"Then you shouldn't have posted any PI. I know everyone knows this, I wanted to rub it in a bit. Nyah, nyah."
"Fuck off."
"OH, SHIT! QUICK, TWID, CRIPPLE YOUR PROJECT! I HAVE A SUDDEN URGE TO GET MY INCREDIBLY NONDESCRIPT FACE OFF OF THE INTERNET!"
Doktor's diagnosis: RWHN's an asshole.
Doktor's prescription: Never, EVER, involve yourself in a project that in any way includes RWHN.
How the hell does this mess up Twid? He already did comics with me in them and I said that I'm not asking him to delete those. I just don't want to be used going forward. I feel like I'm missing something here.
Well, I'll just have to come up with some sort of work around if I can't use his face or a placeholder. Which might be a good thing. :)
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on December 04, 2012, 08:21:39 PM
Well, I'll just have to come up with some sort of work around if I can't use his face or a placeholder. Which might be a good thing. :)
Use Governor LePage.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 04, 2012, 08:20:50 PM
How the hell does this mess up Twid? He already did comics with me in them and I said that I'm not asking him to delete those. I just don't want to be used going forward. I feel like I'm missing something here.
I was going to have Waffles remember you sporadically or have a scene cut to you if a pun is made or if otherwise appropriate. I won't go into further detail, because I'm going to keep what I was going to do, I'm just going to have to figure out a different way to do it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 04, 2012, 08:22:45 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on December 04, 2012, 08:21:39 PM
Well, I'll just have to come up with some sort of work around if I can't use his face or a placeholder. Which might be a good thing. :)
Use Governor LePage.
:lulz:
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on December 04, 2012, 08:23:10 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 04, 2012, 08:20:50 PM
How the hell does this mess up Twid? He already did comics with me in them and I said that I'm not asking him to delete those. I just don't want to be used going forward. I feel like I'm missing something here.
I was going to have Waffles remember you sporadically or have a scene cut to you if a pun is made or if otherwise appropriate. I won't go into further detail, because I'm going to keep what I was going to do, I'm just going to have to figure out a different way to do it.
Maine, Maine, there's always Stephen King.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 04, 2012, 08:20:50 PM
How the hell does this mess up Twid? He already did comics with me in them and I said that I'm not asking him to delete those. I just don't want to be used going forward. I feel like I'm missing something here.
So you're not asking Twid to retroactively remove you from his WOMPs, but you ARE asking Net to retroactively remove you from his?
So this has nothing to do with "protecting your reputation" and everything to do with a big load of butthurt.
Oh, I've got a few ideas up my sleeve already. I may have to (un)include RWHN each episode if I come up with enough.
That said, do note that within the comic, just because Waffles has left your area does not mean that you won't reappear. I intended to do so with, at the very least, RWHN and one other person.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 04, 2012, 08:25:06 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 04, 2012, 08:20:50 PM
How the hell does this mess up Twid? He already did comics with me in them and I said that I'm not asking him to delete those. I just don't want to be used going forward. I feel like I'm missing something here.
So you're not asking Twid to retroactively remove you from his WOMPs, but you ARE asking Net to retroactively remove you from his?
So this has nothing to do with "protecting your reputation" and everything to do with a big load of butthurt.
Sounds familiar.
Oh, yes. "Stewarding my reputation".
Well, on the bright side, he never again has to worry about protecting his reputation here, because he hasn't got one. Not that this concerns him, of course. We're the little people.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 04, 2012, 08:25:06 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 04, 2012, 08:20:50 PM
How the hell does this mess up Twid? He already did comics with me in them and I said that I'm not asking him to delete those. I just don't want to be used going forward. I feel like I'm missing something here.
So you're not asking Twid to retroactively remove you from his WOMPs, but you ARE asking Net to retroactively remove you from his?
So this has nothing to do with "protecting your reputation" and everything to do with a big load of butthurt.
Ah, that is a bit... yeah. I'll have to either edit the existing pictures out of fairness to Net, or.... I'm actually not sure what sort of or there can be....
I asked for my pictures to be removed from the WOMP archives once, a long time ago (except the ones where my face was covered). As far as I know, that request was respected.
However, I asked out of a genuine privacy concern, and not a "privacy concern" that emerged mysteriously after I started being made fun of. Hell, there is still a picture of me buttfucking David Icke, if you know where to look.
Quote from: Cain on December 04, 2012, 08:28:54 PM
I asked for my pictures to be removed from the WOMP archives once, a long time ago (except the ones where my face was covered). As far as I know, that request was respected.
However, I asked out of a genuine privacy concern, and not a "privacy concern" that emerged mysteriously after I started being made fun of. Hell, there is still a picture of me buttfucking David Icke, if you know where to look.
:spittake:
Quote from: Cain on December 04, 2012, 08:28:54 PM
I asked for my pictures to be removed from the WOMP archives once, a long time ago (except the ones where my face was covered). As far as I know, that request was respected.
I completely missed that, Cain. Shall I delete your face from my WOMP library?
Yes please. Only my uncovered face. My ones with the hats and scarves are absolutely fine, of course.
Quote from: Cain on December 04, 2012, 08:36:07 PM
Yes please. Only my uncovered face. My ones with the hats and scarves are absolutely fine, of course.
Oh, sure. I never isolated your uncovered face.
Which, IIRC, is still on your FB page.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 04, 2012, 06:29:50 PM
Technically, people can be assholes, or maybe they could understand someone is going through a personal issue, put their butthurt behind them, and do the right thing.
But, I guess we know which camp you are in, good to know.
That's a bit disappointing.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 04, 2012, 07:33:02 PM
b) At this point that I had entered that thread I didn't have the back-story about your Dad and didn't realize that happened and was a crux of the conversation. Had I realized that I would have been a little more artful about my advice. So I apologize for that but I still believe in the philosophy of the less you put on the internet the better.
Unless, of course, you don't give a fuck. I think the actually appropriate advice is: think carefully what you put on the Internet because once you put it there, it is out of your control. Oh, and be sure to expect that you
will make mistakes in this respect. Period.
Quote from: holist~ on December 04, 2012, 02:19:57 AM
Thank you!
Nigel, you've taken your
SIG off! And we barely know each other!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 04, 2012, 08:02:30 PM
3. It was an asshole thing to say under any circumstances. It was a fucking condescending pat on the fucking head.
AND WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THOSE????? You're an asshole, and proud of it, so take it like you give it, fool!
OR: do you have an ingrained prejudice against receiving condescending pats on your fucking head?
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 04, 2012, 08:25:06 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 04, 2012, 08:20:50 PM
How the hell does this mess up Twid? He already did comics with me in them and I said that I'm not asking him to delete those. I just don't want to be used going forward. I feel like I'm missing something here.
So you're not asking Twid to retroactively remove you from his WOMPs, but you ARE asking Net to retroactively remove you from his?
So this has nothing to do with "protecting your reputation" and everything to do with a big load of butthurt.
Maybe so, but RWHN seems a bit out of his gourd right now so I'm not going to kick him while he's down. I covered up most of his face with a fat "censored" bar and he's still concerned about someone identifying him from some of his hair and beard—downright paranoid if you ask me. It would be funny if I wasn't concerned RWHN is having trouble keeping his shit together through some pretty painful events in his life.
Quote from: Cain on December 04, 2012, 08:28:54 PM
I asked for my pictures to be removed from the WOMP archives once, a long time ago (except the ones where my face was covered). As far as I know, that request was respected.
However, I asked out of a genuine privacy concern, and not a "privacy concern" that emerged mysteriously after I started being made fun of. Hell, there is still a picture of me buttfucking David Icke, if you know where to look.
Don't even try to pretend that was womped you sick bastard :argh!:
This thread went from interesting and confusing to confusing to discord to chaos.
Hail Eris! :lulz:
Quote from: holist on December 05, 2012, 07:36:00 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 04, 2012, 08:02:30 PM
3. It was an asshole thing to say under any circumstances. It was a fucking condescending pat on the fucking head.
AND WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THOSE????? You're an asshole, and proud of it, so take it like you give it, fool!
OR: do you have an ingrained prejudice against receiving condescending pats on your fucking head?
So, you think having some internet asshole harass someone's elderly and ill parent is acceptable, funny, or anything like that?
You are a fucking sociopath.
I think hes more defending rwhn than loveshades crew? Im actually not sure myself....
Either way i think hes trying to inject himself.
Quote from: ho|ist on December 05, 2012, 07:27:41 PM
I think hes more defending rwhn than loveshades crew? Im actually not sure myself....
Either way i think hes trying to inject himself.
Nah, I've done that already.
No, Roger, it is not okay to harass anyone, really, before they make a nuisance of themselves first, and
elderly people deserve even more stringent non-harrassing, even making allowances for grumpy old gits
such as yourself.
Quote from: ho|ist on December 05, 2012, 07:27:41 PM
I think hes more defending rwhn than loveshades crew? Im actually not sure myself....
Either way i think hes trying to inject himself.
Of course he is. The conversation didn't concern him, and that's completely unacceptable.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 05, 2012, 09:31:44 PM
Quote from: ho|ist on December 05, 2012, 07:27:41 PM
I think hes more defending rwhn than loveshades crew? Im actually not sure myself....
Either way i think hes trying to inject himself.
Of course he is. The conversation didn't concern him, and that's completely unacceptable.
!!!CAUTION!!!The Holist levels of this thread have fallen below permissible parameters! Immediate measures must be taken to raise the Holist levels!
Quote from: holist~ on December 05, 2012, 10:19:27 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 05, 2012, 09:31:44 PM
Quote from: ho|ist on December 05, 2012, 07:27:41 PM
I think hes more defending rwhn than loveshades crew? Im actually not sure myself....
Either way i think hes trying to inject himself.
Of course he is. The conversation didn't concern him, and that's completely unacceptable.
!!!CAUTION!!!
The Holist levels of this thread have fallen below permissible parameters! Immediate measures must be taken to raise the Holist levels!
YOU FOOL
You obviously are not the true holist, as you want less holist because to homeopathic quatum power, the less holist the more powerful holist.
There's only one way to settle this.
All the Holists have to FIGHT TO THE DEATH. Last Hungarian standing gets the honor of being a pedantic shitbag.
FIGHT!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 05, 2012, 10:26:55 PM
There's only one way to settle this.
All the Holists have to FIGHT TO THE DEATH. Last Hungarian standing gets the honor of being a pedantic shitbag.
FIGHT!
:lulz:
Quote from: H0list on December 05, 2012, 10:21:37 PM
Quote from: holist~ on December 05, 2012, 10:19:27 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 05, 2012, 09:31:44 PM
Quote from: ho|ist on December 05, 2012, 07:27:41 PM
I think hes more defending rwhn than loveshades crew? Im actually not sure myself....
Either way i think hes trying to inject himself.
Of course he is. The conversation didn't concern him, and that's completely unacceptable.
!!!CAUTION!!!
The Holist levels of this thread have fallen below permissible parameters! Immediate measures must be taken to raise the Holist levels!
YOU FOOL
You obviously are not the true holist, as you want less holist because to homeopathic quatum power, the less holist the more powerful holist.
That's what I mean! If the holist level drops too low, it becomes TOO POWERFUL and that leads to danger! We must keep the holist levels high enough to remain nonhomeopathic and therefore ineffective.
More is less! More is less!
Wait does this men were diluting ourselves too? Or superluting or what? Im confused....
Quote from: ho|ist on December 05, 2012, 11:15:11 PM
Wait does this men were diluting ourselves too? Or superluting or what? Im confused....
Every time we post, we're reducing our efficacy.
May be time for a polar bear fur coat, godamnit.
I'm starting to work out who is who though.
Quote from: Pixie on December 06, 2012, 02:07:07 AM
May be time for a polar bear fur coat, godamnit.
I'm starting to work out who is who though.
Well done! Did you also hit on the idea of hitting their post-list, scrolling back a few days and finding something memorable by them?
You smart!
Quote from: ho|ist on December 05, 2012, 11:15:11 PM
Wait does this men were diluting ourselves too? Or superluting or what? Im confused....
Diluting perhaps. Or is that dilating? Because you do appear to be quite... thin.
Quote from: holist on December 06, 2012, 05:20:30 AM
Quote from: Pixie on December 06, 2012, 02:07:07 AM
May be time for a polar bear fur coat, godamnit.
I'm starting to work out who is who though.
Well done! Did you also hit on the idea of hitting their post-list, scrolling back a few days and finding something memorable by them?
You smart!
Standard procedure for a round of name changes, dawg.
Quote from: hølist on December 06, 2012, 05:23:07 AM
Quote from: holist on December 06, 2012, 05:20:30 AM
Quote from: Pixie on December 06, 2012, 02:07:07 AM
May be time for a polar bear fur coat, godamnit.
I'm starting to work out who is who though.
Well done! Did you also hit on the idea of hitting their post-list, scrolling back a few days and finding something memorable by them?
You smart!
Standard procedure for a round of name changes, dawg.
Was kinda the point I was making? Take a class in irony.
Quote from: holist on December 06, 2012, 05:27:49 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 06, 2012, 05:23:07 AM
Quote from: holist on December 06, 2012, 05:20:30 AM
Quote from: Pixie on December 06, 2012, 02:07:07 AM
May be time for a polar bear fur coat, godamnit.
I'm starting to work out who is who though.
Well done! Did you also hit on the idea of hitting their post-list, scrolling back a few days and finding something memorable by them?
You smart!
Standard procedure for a round of name changes, dawg.
Was kinda the point I was making? Take a class in irony.
There is no irony in your statements.
Maybe you should take your supplements?
Quote from: H0list on December 06, 2012, 05:45:29 AM
Quote from: holist on December 06, 2012, 05:27:49 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 06, 2012, 05:23:07 AM
Quote from: holist on December 06, 2012, 05:20:30 AM
Quote from: Pixie on December 06, 2012, 02:07:07 AM
May be time for a polar bear fur coat, godamnit.
I'm starting to work out who is who though.
Well done! Did you also hit on the idea of hitting their post-list, scrolling back a few days and finding something memorable by them?
You smart!
Standard procedure for a round of name changes, dawg.
Was kinda the point I was making? Take a class in irony.
There is no irony in your statements.
Maybe you should take your supplements?
I think he maybe does not know what the word "irony" means and is confusing it for "sarcasm".
At this point, I just think he's an irredeemable asshole.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 06, 2012, 06:10:55 AM
At this point, I just think he's an irredeemable asshole.
That makes him sound interesting.
Interesting to poke for a little while, maybe. But I think we've seen all the tricks this pony has.
Quote from: hølist on December 06, 2012, 05:23:07 AM
Quote from: holist on December 06, 2012, 05:20:30 AM
Quote from: Pixie on December 06, 2012, 02:07:07 AM
May be time for a polar bear fur coat, godamnit.
I'm starting to work out who is who though.
Well done! Did you also hit on the idea of hitting their post-list, scrolling back a few days and finding something memorable by them?
You smart!
Standard procedure for a round of name changes, dawg.
Doing that would take the fun out of it all. NO I JUST WAIT TILL THE OTHER BEARS MENTION SOMETHING THAT REMINDS ME WHO IS WHO. For srs.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 06, 2012, 06:10:55 AM
At this point, I just think he's an irredeemable asshole.
What he is, is BORING. We've seen it all before.
Mhm. He's just extra insufferable.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 06, 2012, 01:54:51 PM
Mhm. He's just extra insufferable.
He's like an annoying commercial that doesn't come on every day, but when it comes on, it gets played 3 fucking times per commercial break.
I find it much more entertaining to treat all Holists equally. All Holists display quantum entanglement, so if you zing one of them, you zing them all.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 06, 2012, 01:42:43 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 06, 2012, 06:10:55 AM
At this point, I just think he's an irredeemable asshole.
What he is, is BORING. We've seen it all before.
This is what I meant, Garbo was giving him too much credit. Irredeemable assholes are interesting, even if you wouldn't want to share rice pudding with them.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 06, 2012, 05:27:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 06, 2012, 01:42:43 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 06, 2012, 06:10:55 AM
At this point, I just think he's an irredeemable asshole.
What he is, is BORING. We've seen it all before.
This is what I meant, Garbo was giving him too much credit. Irredeemable assholes are interesting, even if you wouldn't want to share rice pudding with them.
Well yeah.
A guy in the bus station (these places are frequented by these types) was telling me that his ex girlfriend made big money doing plate jobs for Wall St. CEO's. On a certain level, they DO feel guilt for being irredeemable assholes, but instead of not fucking people over, they're into humiliation and eating poomp.
THAT'S interesting.
Holist, no.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 06, 2012, 05:41:57 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 06, 2012, 05:27:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 06, 2012, 01:42:43 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 06, 2012, 06:10:55 AM
At this point, I just think he's an irredeemable asshole.
What he is, is BORING. We've seen it all before.
This is what I meant, Garbo was giving him too much credit. Irredeemable assholes are interesting, even if you wouldn't want to share rice pudding with them.
Well yeah.
A guy in the bus station (these places are frequented by these types) was telling me that his ex girlfriend made big money doing plate jobs for Wall St. CEO's. On a certain level, they DO feel guilt for being irredeemable assholes, but instead of not fucking people over, they're into humiliation and eating poomp.
THAT'S interesting.
Holist, no.
Bus stations are like that.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 06, 2012, 05:42:43 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 06, 2012, 05:41:57 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 06, 2012, 05:27:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 06, 2012, 01:42:43 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 06, 2012, 06:10:55 AM
At this point, I just think he's an irredeemable asshole.
What he is, is BORING. We've seen it all before.
This is what I meant, Garbo was giving him too much credit. Irredeemable assholes are interesting, even if you wouldn't want to share rice pudding with them.
Well yeah.
A guy in the bus station (these places are frequented by these types) was telling me that his ex girlfriend made big money doing plate jobs for Wall St. CEO's. On a certain level, they DO feel guilt for being irredeemable assholes, but instead of not fucking people over, they're into humiliation and eating poomp.
THAT'S interesting.
Holist, no.
Bus stations are like that.
Yes.
It was a fairly interesting conversation until he tried to show me what he claimed was a Lakota handshake and I excused myself to go to the flooded and be-papered shit dump that passes for a "ladies room".
Never let anyone make physical contact in a bus station. EVER.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 06, 2012, 05:45:45 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 06, 2012, 05:42:43 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 06, 2012, 05:41:57 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 06, 2012, 05:27:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 06, 2012, 01:42:43 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 06, 2012, 06:10:55 AM
At this point, I just think he's an irredeemable asshole.
What he is, is BORING. We've seen it all before.
This is what I meant, Garbo was giving him too much credit. Irredeemable assholes are interesting, even if you wouldn't want to share rice pudding with them.
Well yeah.
A guy in the bus station (these places are frequented by these types) was telling me that his ex girlfriend made big money doing plate jobs for Wall St. CEO's. On a certain level, they DO feel guilt for being irredeemable assholes, but instead of not fucking people over, they're into humiliation and eating poomp.
THAT'S interesting.
Holist, no.
Bus stations are like that.
Yes.
It was a fairly interesting conversation until he tried to show me what he claimed was a Lakota handshake and I excused myself to go to the flooded and be-papered shit dump that passes for a "ladies room".
Never let anyone make physical contact in a bus station. EVER.
Lakota handshake?
Is that where you put your fingers in some weird configuration and then tear off Custer's scalp?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 06, 2012, 05:52:10 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 06, 2012, 05:45:45 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 06, 2012, 05:42:43 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 06, 2012, 05:41:57 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 06, 2012, 05:27:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 06, 2012, 01:42:43 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 06, 2012, 06:10:55 AM
At this point, I just think he's an irredeemable asshole.
What he is, is BORING. We've seen it all before.
This is what I meant, Garbo was giving him too much credit. Irredeemable assholes are interesting, even if you wouldn't want to share rice pudding with them.
Well yeah.
A guy in the bus station (these places are frequented by these types) was telling me that his ex girlfriend made big money doing plate jobs for Wall St. CEO's. On a certain level, they DO feel guilt for being irredeemable assholes, but instead of not fucking people over, they're into humiliation and eating poomp.
THAT'S interesting.
Holist, no.
Bus stations are like that.
Yes.
It was a fairly interesting conversation until he tried to show me what he claimed was a Lakota handshake and I excused myself to go to the flooded and be-papered shit dump that passes for a "ladies room".
Never let anyone make physical contact in a bus station. EVER.
Lakota handshake?
Is that where you put your fingers in some weird configuration and then tear off Custer's scalp?
I wish. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Hoopla on December 06, 2012, 05:27:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 06, 2012, 01:42:43 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 06, 2012, 06:10:55 AM
At this point, I just think he's an irredeemable asshole.
What he is, is BORING. We've seen it all before.
This is what I meant, Garbo was giving him too much credit. Irredeemable assholes are interesting, even if you wouldn't want to share rice pudding with them.
:? Maybe that's a subjective thing? Because my response to irredeemable assholes is
(https://gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net/8019B6/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_melbx0L2GT1qgcy04.gif)
Quote from: Pixie on December 06, 2012, 06:53:22 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 06, 2012, 05:23:07 AM
Quote from: holist on December 06, 2012, 05:20:30 AM
Quote from: Pixie on December 06, 2012, 02:07:07 AM
May be time for a polar bear fur coat, godamnit.
I'm starting to work out who is who though.
Well done! Did you also hit on the idea of hitting their post-list, scrolling back a few days and finding something memorable by them?
You smart!
Standard procedure for a round of name changes, dawg.
Doing that would take the fun out of it all. NO I JUST WAIT TILL THE OTHER BEARS MENTION SOMETHING THAT REMINDS ME WHO IS WHO. For srs.
It does make it MUCH more fun that way.
Please don't talk about Bears and Holist in the same post. It makes my whoopsie all sad.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 06, 2012, 06:42:44 PM
Please don't talk about Bears and Holist in the same post. It makes my whoopsie all sad.
Sorry! Let me fix that:
(http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/10/22785000/ngbbs4dcc53d0df83c.jpg)
BETTER.
Quote from: hølist on December 06, 2012, 06:46:20 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 06, 2012, 06:42:44 PM
Please don't talk about Bears and Holist in the same post. It makes my whoopsie all sad.
Sorry! Let me fix that:
(http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/10/22785000/ngbbs4dcc53d0df83c.jpg)
So I pop on the PD aaaannnd
:fap2:
:lulz:
Post-cleanup bump.
After staying out of it for a while (and seeing as the arguments has wandered off), I've been harboring a suspicion. A mean, ugly suspicion.
I suspect that the crux of the earlier disagreements about prejudice was...
:scared: was...
...a semantic problem.
(http://www.clevescene.com/binary/3e89/1349813923-thats-racist.gif)
Oh. Wait. Semantic. Sorry, never mind.
Quote from: Cain on December 07, 2012, 06:03:21 PM
(http://www.clevescene.com/binary/3e89/1349813923-thats-racist.gif)
Oh. Wait. Semantic. Sorry, never mind.
Semantic sounds awfully close to Semitic.
Is this thread anti-semitic!? :aaa: