- Kugyou no Tenshi
- Nov 8, 2005
-
We can't keep the crowd waiting, can we?
|
Liberal columnists/comedians can be quite rude. The fact that there are plenty of rude conservatives doesn't unruden the liberal ones, it just allows people from the right and left to do exactly what you're doing and excuse it "because the other side does it and worse." It also allows bigots to justify themselves by pointing out the seething emotions expressed by their detractors. It may be satisfying to insult someone, but it usually does little to actually further the cause.
I think you're missing the point.
Article posted:All too often the difference between left and right in what should be “polite circles” is quite sharply drawn. Conservatives think liberals have bad ideas and liberals think conservative are bad people.
[...]
Rush at least apologized for his nasty crack about pro-choice activist Sandra Fluke being a “slut.”
[...]
In liberal-comic world no slur is too slimy, whether it’s old cracks about Reagan having Alzheimer’s his entire life or new ones about Sarah Palin being a “moosehead.”
[...]
This is not to say that conservatives haven’t made bad jokes about Barack Obama, but liberal comics have until lately given the president a notorious pass.
I mean, look at it. Fund quotes the following comment as part of his evidence of how rude liberals are:
quote:[...]But today’s Tea Party does not have alternative credible views; it peddles an awful brew of mythology and ignorance, and I cannot respect it as if I thought it had a chance of being right.
The point isn't to excuse the liberal side of the issue, it's to point out that the author of this article seriously thinks that "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot" and "I might be in favor of national healthcare if it required all Democrats to get their heads examined" (what was that about Conservatives only not liking liberal ideas? Now we're all mentally ill!) are equivalent statements, or that comments about Sarah Palin being a "moosehead" and "Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream" are equivalent. Or, to be more to the point, that the comments from the left are in all ways worse, and the ones on the right are either just light-hearted humor or true (and we all know being right gets you a free pass for being a dickwad).
I mean, the last sentence in the article is
quote:
Back to square one in the culture wars.
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 17:24
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2024 08:12
|
|
- Fuckt Tupp
- Apr 19, 2007
-
Science
|
Dude has a point, Moosehead isn't funny at all. The obvious is mooseknuckle. Even that isn't really funny, but at least it's a legitimate joke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 18:43
|
|
- Kugyou no Tenshi
- Nov 8, 2005
-
We can't keep the crowd waiting, can we?
|
Dude has a point, Moosehead isn't funny at all. The obvious is mooseknuckle. Even that isn't really funny, but at least it's a legitimate joke.
I can't even figure out what "moosehead" is supposed to mean, unless it's just some catch-all aspersion against Alaskans or the Alaskan equivalent of a redneck. Even then, there's a big difference between saying "she's a hick" and "feminism exists because ugly women want attention too".
And why "mooseknuckle"? That doesn't even make sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 19:47
|
|
- Fuckt Tupp
- Apr 19, 2007
-
Science
|
I can't even figure out what "moosehead" is supposed to mean, unless it's just some catch-all aspersion against Alaskans or the Alaskan equivalent of a redneck. Even then, there's a big difference between saying "she's a hick" and "feminism exists because ugly women want attention too".
And why "mooseknuckle"? That doesn't even make sense.
It's a vaguely sexual term, like teabaggers. I didn't say it was good, just more of an insult than moosehead, whatever that is supposed to mean.
The more salient point of his argument is that he had to make up a name that is supposedly an insult to Palin because she isn't topical enough to be a hot comedy target anymore. Yet he still idolizes her.
Fuckt Tupp fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Jun 17, 2013
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 20:00
|
|
- Deific Presence
- May 7, 2007
-
|
And why "mooseknuckle"? That doesn't even make sense.
It's another form of "cameltoe" and sounds much more disturbing, in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 21:11
|
|
- SavageBastard
- Nov 16, 2007
-
Professional Lurker
|
I think you're missing the point.
The piece, and the piece it's referring to, are literally "liberals are meanies who say mean things about us good, right Conservatives". All objectionable statements from the right are either played off as "bad jokes", noted to have been apologized for, or - and this is the vast and overwhelming majority - not admitted to at all. Only the barest of lip service is given to the fact that there are right-wing faces spouting abhorrent drivel.
So your point is that the conservative partisan hack isn't being fair to liberals? Really? It's all a race to the victim position any way you want to cut it. I may sympathize more with the liberal quips and be more outraged by the conservative ones but that's my bias and I'm aware of it and willing to admit it. If your argument can be summed up by "yeah but what THEY say is REALLY bad" then you're just in the same cycle. You aren't going to win that fight. You're never going to get them to admit they are "worse" or "started it." Everyone holds up the worst of the other side and pretends that is the norm of the opposition. I'm not saying they are equivalent, I'm saying that the grass is always shittier from the other side.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 22:34
|
|
- King Dopplepopolos
- Aug 3, 2007
-
Give us a raise, loser!
|
If your argument can be summed up by "yeah but what THEY say is REALLY bad" then you're just in the same cycle. You aren't going to win that fight. You're never going to get them to admit they are "worse" or "started it."
And that's exactly the problem. There are liberal assholes, and there are actual liberals who criticize those liberal assholes. Bill Maher, for example, gets a lot of flak from liberals for a variety of issues. When was the last time you heard of a conservative criticizing Rush Limbaugh, for example? Not that they're exactly equivalent, but I can't think of one Republican who will ever take Limbaugh to task for any statement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 13:32
|
|
- Frog Act
- Feb 10, 2012
-
|
So my newspaper printed what may be the most absurd letter to the editor I've ever seen.
quote:Editor, Times-Dispatch:
It is heartwarming to read The Times-Dispatch’s news account of how Sen. Tim Kaine performed a historic first by delivering a speech on immigration reform in Spanish. Nice going, Senator. I assume that for his next trick, he’ll deliver a speech on Islamic terrorism in Arabic.
Not too long ago, politicians were expressing concern about the “creeping Hispanization” of this country. We don’t hear much about this anymore — the creep has turned into a gallop while Kaine and other politicians struggle to outdo one another in jumping on the Spanish-speaking bandwagon.
Before we let our leaders turn us into a bilingual country, it would be advisable to look at what is going on in those countries which have more than one official language.
The former Yugoslavia had four official languages, and when it split up into five countries, it did so basically along linguistic lines. The recent long and bloody war in Sri Lanka pitted Tamil speakers against Sinhala speakers. Closer to home, in Canada, alleged discrimination against French speakers by the English-speaking majority prompts the province of Quebec to periodically hold secession referendums. In Belgium, there is never-ending friction between French speakers and Flemish speakers. In South Africa, Afrikaans speakers are pitted against English speakers and the island of Cyprus is partitioned between Greek speakers and Turkish speakers. And on and on it goes.
The one exception to this rule of thumb is Switzerland, where the inhabitants live in peace and harmony despite having four official languages. However, if America decides to go bilingual, I doubt very much if it would become the second exception.
John B. Browning. Charlottesville.
 Literally everything this guy is asserting is wrong. Just so utterly wrong. Spanish has as long (longer really) a history in North America as English, virtually every country on the planet has recognized minority languages that don't cause violent civil wars, and holy poo poo I love the "maybe next he'll deliver a speech on terrorism in Arabic" part.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 15:50
|
|
- Harold Fjord
- Jan 3, 2004
-
|
Really though, if we go bilingual, his supporters probably would try to murder Spanish-speakers in the streets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 16:10
|
|
- pig slut lisa
- Mar 5, 2012
-
irl is good
|
More fun from my local paper:
A man with a disturbing obsession posted:
I ask those who think homosexuality is normal the following question: would you do what a homosexual does? If not, why not?
If homosexuality is normal, then why doesn’t everyone do it? The truth is what homosexuals do is sick, isn’t it?
The key word is “sick.” Should we judge and condemn people who are sick or should we pity them and try to cure them?
In Alcoholics Anonymous, the first step is getting people to admit they are alcoholics and then see what it is doing to them. It’s the same in Christianity for homosexuals, but it’s necessary to go one step further and convince them that if they don’t change they will burn in hell forever.
We boast of being a Christian nation. If that’s true, why don’t we care about what God says? Romans 1:24-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:9-10 are clear about what God thinks of homosexuality and what he will do to them and those who give “hearty approval.”
This country needs to read the Bible and find out what happens to people or a nation that defies or disobeys God. The Roman empire no longer exists. The Greek empire. The Spanish empire. Russia is in a shambles. America is in a shambles. The recessions and severe weather we’ve had are just warnings.
While it's disheartening that my newspaper publishes this crap, they also publish the other side. My letter made it in the paper today:
Nice Davis posted:
The News-Gazette recently published a letter by J. Michael Short of Champaign titled "Homosexuality is definitely not normal." I feel very embarrassed on Short's behalf. Not only does he struggle to make a logical argument, but he reveals an unhealthy level of obsession with the sex lives of consenting adults. Oops. How awkward.
I've encountered any number of wonderful straight, gay and lesbian couples throughout my life. I've learned about their pasts, encouraged them in pursuing their goals and supported them in good times and bad. One thing I never find myself thinking about, though, is their sex lives. Call me old-fashioned.
I'm fascinated by the way homophobes such as Short fixate on gay and lesbian sex. They sure give it a lot more attention than the gays and lesbians I know. Those people lead well-adjusted lives, where work, friends, family, love, recreation and responsibilities all receive a healthy balance of attention. Sex does too, I suppose, but it is only one piece of the puzzle, not the whole puzzle.
Perhaps Short's obsession with gay sex rises to an unhealthy level. Never fear though. Per your letter's advice, I do not judge and condemn you for your sickness, but rather pity him and hope for his eventual healing. By viewing his fellow men and women as complete and multifaceted human beings, rather than solely as sexual creatures, I'm sure he can move beyond his affliction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 18:04
|
|
- woke wedding drone
- Jun 1, 2003
-
by exmarx
-
Fun Shoe
|
Would you buy a truck instead of a car? If not, why not?
If it's normal to drive trucks instead of cars, why doesn't everyone do it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 01:04
|
|
- Frog Act
- Feb 10, 2012
-
|
I know I posted something odious from this newspaper yesterday too but this featured editorial really chapped my caboose today. Here is a black man hating the idea of "diversity", and then somehow claiming diversity is responsible for wind farms.
quote:alterWilliams
Grutter v. Bollinger was the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s racial admissions policy. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the majority, said the U.S. Constitution “does not prohibit the Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” But what are the educational benefits of a diverse student body?
Intellectuals argue that diversity is necessary for academic excellence, but what’s the evidence? For example, Japan is a nation bereft of diversity in any activity. Close to 99 percent of its population is of one race. Whose students do you think have higher academic achievement — theirs or ours? According to the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment, the academic performance of U.S. high school students in reading, math and science pales in comparison with their diversity-starved counterparts in Japan.
Should companies be treated equally? According to a Wall Street Journal op/ed (9/7/2009) by Manhattan Institute’s energy expert Robert Bryce, Exxon Mobil pleaded guilty in federal court to killing 85 birds that had come into contact with its pollutants. The company paid $600,000 in fines and fees. A recent Associated Press story (5/14/2013) reported that “more than 573,000 birds are killed by the country’s wind farms each year, including 83,000 hunting birds such as hawks, falcons and eagles, according to an estimate published in March in the peer-reviewed Wildlife
Society Bulletin.”
The Obama administration has never fined or prosecuted windmill farms, sometimes called bird Cuisinarts, for killing eagles and other protected bird species. In fact, AP reports that the Obama administration has shielded the industry from liability and has helped keep the scope of the deaths secret. It’s interesting that The Associated Press chose to report the story only after the news about its reporters being secretly investigated. That caused the Obama administration to fall a bit out of favor with them. But what the heck, the 14th Amendment’s requirement of “equal protection” before the law for everybody can be cast aside in the name of diversity, so why can’t it be cast aside in the name of saving the planet? There are politically favored industries just as there are politically favored groups.
What’s the difference between a progressive, a liberal and a racist? In some cases, not much. President Woodrow Wilson was a leading progressive who believed in notions of racial superiority and inferiority. He was so enthralled with D.W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation” movie, glorifying the Ku Klux Klan, that he invited various dignitaries to the White House to view it with him. During one private screening, President Wilson exclaimed: “It’s like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.” When President Wilson introduced racial segregation to the civil service, the NAACP and the National Independent Political League protested. Wilson vigorously defended it, arguing that segregation was in the interest of Negroes.
Thomas Sowell, in “Intellectuals and Race,” documents other progressives who were advocates of theories of racial inferiority. They included former presidents of Stanford University and MIT, among others. Eventually, the views of progressives fell out of favor. They changed their name to liberals, but in the latter part of the 20th century, the name liberals fell into disrepute. Now they are back to calling themselves progressives.
I’m not arguing that today’s progressives are racists like their predecessors, but they share a contempt for liberty, just as President Wilson did. According to Hillsdale College history professor Paul A. Rahe — author of “Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift” — in his National Review Online (4/11/13) article “Progressive Racism,” Wilson wanted to persuade his compatriots to get “beyond the Declaration of Independence.” Wilson said the document “did not mention the questions” of his day, adding, “It is of no consequence to us.” My question is: Why haven’t today’s progressives disavowed their racist predecessors?
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
Liberals who love diversity, don't you understand liberals are racists and you're responsible for bird genocide? Also, like many white nationalists, this guy recognizes the strength of homogeneity in Japan and that it obviously has never caused them any problems. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 17:09
|
|
- The Warszawa
- Jun 6, 2005
-
Look at me. Look at me.
I am the captain now.
|
I know I posted something odious from this newspaper yesterday too but this featured editorial really chapped my caboose today. Here is a black man hating the idea of "diversity", and then somehow claiming diversity is responsible for wind farms.
Liberals who love diversity, don't you understand liberals are racists and you're responsible for bird genocide? Also, like many white nationalists, this guy recognizes the strength of homogeneity in Japan and that it obviously has never caused them any problems.
Diversity is, however, the dumbest rationale for supporting race-conscious affirmative action, since it predicates the justification of the policy on its benefits to white people (though diversity supposedly benefits all, Grutter is only concerned with critical mass of people of color and not, for example, white critical mass and the rest of the spots going to people of color) and that opens it up to the balancing between "benefits of diversity" and "costs to whites incurred by affirmative action."
Still a bad article though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 00:47
|
|
- VideoTapir
- Oct 18, 2005
-
He'll tire eventually.
|
http://www.forbes.com/sites/donaldkirk/2013/06/19/why-doesnt-snowden-tell-us-north-koreas-game-plan/
quote:
Why Doesn't Snowden Tell Us North Korea's Game Plan?
Computer whiz Edward Snowden’s revelations of the NSA’s broadbrush program for sweeping up internet and phone messages by the millions raises a perplexing question: If the NSA and CIA and others know so much, why do we have so much trouble seeing through North Korea?
Take North Korea’s offer to talk to the U.S. after spurning talks with South Korea. The excitement generated by the North Korean bid provides a powerful reminder of how skillfully the North Koreans play the negotiating game.
They got out of talks they’d arranged with the South Koreans, claiming the South Korean negotiator was a mere vice minister, not the minister of unification, even though the North Korean negotiator was himself not on ministerial level. The whole point was to show “south Korea” — the “south” in lower case in North Korean parlance — was the inferior party.
Dark hole. Satellite picture shows lights out in North Korea while lights shine in the South. (Wikipedia)
By saying they’d now like to talk to the U.S., the North Koreans are tossing the South out of the process altogether. Or at least that’s what they’d like to do. The U.S. isn’t buying — not because the North is dissing the South but because North Korea absolutely won’t do a thing, as everyone knows, about getting rid of its nuclear program.
So what’s next in the great chess game of Northeast Asian diplomacy? While a North Korean envoy goes to Beijing, a South Korean envoy goes to Washington. It’s as though both teams have to get their signals straight, to figure out their next play.
Do the Americans, with all their high-tech wizardry, know what the North Koreans and Chinese are telling each other? Would Edward Snowden have clues from all the stuff he’s been revealing?
Any chance the North Koreans, after making a huge fuss, might settle for reopening the Kaesong Industrial Complex that they shut down in a fit of pique, depriving 53,000 North Korean workers of jobs and more than 50 South Korean firms of their investment? After all, Kaesong was supposed to have been the main topic of the cancelled North-South talks.
No, the answers to North Korea’s moves on the chessboard aren’t coming out in intercepted phone calls and decoded messages. For all the unbelievable technology of the NSA, and Snowden’s equally unbelievable theft of whatever he could get away with, North Korea remains the big dark hole in U.S.intelligence. No one has figured out how to bug the top decision-makers in the North, to track their conversations, to know who’s doing or saying what to whom.
Just as I doubt Edward Snowden has come up with details of North Korean phone-snooping, I don’t place much credence in a Fox news reporter’s claim that sources in North Korea told the CIA in June 2009 about the North’s plans to test another nuclear device. That’s a guess that anyone could make. The North had conducted a test in May 2009 – and didn’t do another one until four months ago.
Much of what we know about North Korea is speculation. Some people think the young “Supreme Leader” Kim Jong-un reigns supreme. Some say his aunt, Kim Kyong-hui, and her husband, Jang Song-thaek are in charge. If phone interceptions could show Kim Kyong-hui to be the power behind the throne, then analysts could have fun saying both North and South Korea are ruled by daughters of dictators. Kim Kyong-hui, younger sister of the late Kim Jong-il, is the daughter of “Great Leader” Kim Il-sung while the South’s President Park Geun-hye is the daughter of Park Chung-hee, who ruled for eighteen and one half years until his intel chief shot him.
So why can’t Snowden regale us with a few details on the North’s royal family? Aren’t there any juicy tidbits about the Kim dynasty in any of those millions of emails and phone calls that the NSA has been monitoring?
In the quest for answers to those questions, it seems incredible that anyone would take seriously North Korea’s call for talks with the U.S. Speaking of same old/same old! Yet the North Korean plea was a top media story, just as Pyongyang intended, making the U.S. the guilty party for rejecting a seeming bid for peace.
Why aren’t there any intercepts from Pyongyang? Didn’t Snowden come up with anything that might expose the North’s game plan? It would be comforting to think the NSA really had a clue as to what’s going on.
I realize this is most likely just a mundane, pointless article with no new insight or information sexed-up by name-dropping a current unrelated hot topic. But I'm kind of half wondering if there's some other point here. Like "If Snowden's such a hero why isn't he telling us about the REAL bad guys?" or maybe the other way around, "How incompetent is NSA, if they have all this capability and they can't tell us about what KJU is having for breakfast?" And underlying this all is the assumption that Snowden must know everything that the NSA does. (It's called Sensitive COMPARTMENTED Information for a reason, dude.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 06:57
|
|
- sub supau
- Aug 28, 2007
-
|
More fun from my local paper:
quote:I ask those who think homosexuality is normal the following question: would you do what a homosexual does? If not, why not?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 09:32
|
|
- sleeptalker
- Feb 17, 2011
-
|
Ruben Navarrette Jr. consistently writes maybe the most nuanced-yet-nasty opinion pieces I've ever read. Here's the most recent one I've seen:
http://www.chron.com/default/article/Navarrette-Jr-We-can-t-play-favorites-on-4610494.php
quote:Immigrant rights advocates recently marked the one-year anniversary of the government program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.
So it's time to do three things: understand what DACA is and isn't; evaluate the illegal immigrants whom it was meant to help, i.e., the estimated 1.5 million DREAMers brought to the United States as children by their parents; and take stock of the legislation at the center of all this - the DREAM Act, which would have given legal status to young people who went to college or joined the military if it had not died in the Democratic-controlled Senate in 2010.
First, DACA is not an executive order issued by President Obama which would have the force of law and require some effort to overturn. It is merely a temporary change in policy at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is run by the Department of Homeland Security. House Republicans recently approved an amendment by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, to a DHS appropriations bill that would, essentially, end DACA.
Adding to the drama, the DHS is not an honest broker. By the end of 2013, the agency is expected to have deported as many as 2 million people. Why would anyone apply for a program that requires telling ICE their name, home address and names of parents and siblings who are also undocumented?
More than 150,000 DACA applications have been approved to date. Successful applicants are given a work permit, and, for two years, they can continue to live in the United States without being deported. Yet no one knows what happens after that grace period ends.
Besides, the administration doesn't even respect its own program. There are disturbing stories - circulated often by grass-roots immigrant rights groups such as Presente.org and Cuentame - of young people who obtained DACA protection and still got a deportation order. Immigration lawyers have warned me that, without immigration reform, DACA is just a paper shield.
As for the DREAMers, many of them have issues. No one knows what to do with them. Their conundrum is that they insist they did nothing wrong since they were brought here involuntarily. But they are also reluctant to complete the thought and admit who broke the law to bring them here - their parents.
The good news: Raised in the United States, they are, for all intents and purposes, Americans. The bad news: Many of them have marinated for years in the same juices as the rest of America's youth - demanding rights but ignoring responsibilities, plagued by narcissism, fawned over and convinced that they are special and entitled.
I've said this before, hoping to give DREAMers a wake-up call. It worked with some, but others hit the snooze button.
No matter. Someone needs to tell the truth about a subset of the illegal immigrant population who - with help from the media, self-serving 501(c)3 organizations, and Democratic politicians - now see themselves as the princes and princesses of the undocumented world.
Finally, concerning the DREAM Act itself, the spirit of the legislation lives on in the Senate immigration bill proposed by the Gang of Eight. The bill would require most undocumented immigrants to wait 10 years for legal permanent residency, but it cuts the wait time in half to five years for DREAMers.
Why? When the DREAM Act was first introduced in the Senate in 2001, the idea made sense. Congress wasn't going near immigration reform. The thinking was that the ship was sinking and there should be a lifeboat. The DREAM Act was it. Now, in 2013, Congress is debating an immigration bill that could legalize as many as 11 million people. So there is no need for lifeboats. What makes DREAMers more important than millions of other hardworking illegal immigrants who aren't going to college or joining the military?
The DREAM Act is an idea whose time has come - and gone. In hindsight, the bill was always snobby and divisive. It would have put those who went to college in front of those who went to work or opted for vocational school. It would have divided families.
DACA hasn't lived up to the billing. The DREAMERS aren't as special as they think they are. And the DREAM Act doesn't look as good as it once did.
Where does that leave us? The same place we were in 2001, before we began this telenovela - in need of real immigration reform that isn't elitist and doesn't play favorites.
I honestly don't know where to start on this. There's just so much misdirection, so many little political subversions and appeals to not-quite-the-party-line. I'm impressed with his sheer manipulative talent, at least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 17:55
|
|
- The Vosgian Beast
- Aug 13, 2011
-
Business is slow
|
Semi-famous playwright John Steppling writes a bizarre blogpost about anime saying that autism is part of the decay of western civilization, then responds to hatemail a few days later by saying that, because he is not a rapist, he should not be blamed for anything.
John Steppling posted:Something occurred to me regarding the last posting. I got a few hate mails from people about autism; and this usually took the form of complaints about my insensitivity to their (the autistic email writer’s) hard life, or in general those with autism and their suffering.
So, a few things first — though they lead into the actual topic of this entry: suffering is pretty much what the entire world shares. You cant stand and look around in all directions, no matter where you are, and not see suffering. Secondly, this is the province of *hurt feelings*. Unless I had an out of body experience, I didnt rape anyone, beat up anyone’s children, burn down anyone’s house, drop napalm on any wedding parties, or trigger hellfire missiles at anyone’s village, nor did I cheat anyone, steal anything from anyone, torture anyone’s pet kitten, or even tease anyone’s Cocker Spaniel. Nor was I making fun of anyone. I wrote a loving blog entry — and discussed the topic of autism and culture.
When I was young my parents, in rapid succession, were told I was a genius (or advanced learner or something….) and a sociopath. I suspect more emphasis on the latter. We are all suffering various conditions and life is hard, and despair lurks behind every door it often seems. Partly this is why humans create. And tell each other stories. And paint and dance. Growing up –especially under advanced capital, or in nations under the boot heel of Imperialist capital, is always a progress through madness and pain. That said, I often wonder, if psychically, the rich don’t really suffer more, or simply live in a state of greater anxiety. The point is, the very act of bringing up one’s “hurt feelings” for public display is just this side of grotesque, and additionally, the demand for apology in this society is pathological —- firstly because its never accepted, and secondly, because it is never, and can never, be sincere.
The best thing is if you inserted this in an article complaining about how you can't use racial slurs anymore, it works just as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 00:24
|
|
- Tiler Kiwi
- Feb 26, 2011
-
|
More fun from my local paper:
While it's disheartening that my newspaper publishes this crap, they also publish the other side. My letter made it in the paper today:
I found his bit about dying empires to be... well, stupid. I guess its pretty dumb to get confused by his misunderstanding of history considering how badly he's hosed up every other thing he's written, but still. The Roman Empire was born pagan and died Christian, but they killed Jesus so whatever. The Russians were godless commies I guess, although they're not exactly "collapsed". The Greek empire rose and fell before there were even Christians... unless he's talking about Byzantium, which was Christian but Orthodox so gently caress those beard wearing assholes I guess. The Spanish one, though, I really don't loving get. The Spanish Empire was born by the literal bloodshed of Muslims, persecuted the gently caress out of Jews throughout its existence, bloated itself on the death and misery of pagans in the New World (and converted the survivors), but somehow still collapsed due to defying God or something.
Like I can get a loving God not being cool with Spain but this guy thinks God caused the recession because He saw boys kissing boys so...
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 01:54
|
|
- Walter
- Jul 3, 2003
-
We think they're great. In a grand, mystical, neopolitical sense, these guys have a real message in their music. They don't, however, have neat names like me and Bono.
|
I guess I'm not surprised Ray Stevens - who was popular with my grandparents more than twenty years ago - is a conservative spouting the same old tired points (teleprompter, golf).
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 11:37
|
|
- raven4267
- May 7, 2009
-
|
This was printed in my local paper. It makes my head hurt.
quote:
In the beginning there was a vast, infinite space and total darkness, with no matter of any kind, a total vacuum.
According to the theory of evolution, eons ago dust gathered and created sand and clay particles.
In time more complex elements were created such as iron and copper ore. Over a long time came more advanced metallurgical elements such as nickel, boron, chrome, niobium and additional elements, then precious metals such as gold, silver and platinum.
Then water was created, huge quantities of it. Later evolution took a huge leap with the creation of energy - trillion of stars radiating unimaginable quantities of heat!
There are many brilliant scientists on the Earth. However, not one has ever been able to create one grain of sand, nor one drop of water, nor one BTU of energy from nothing. Yet they believe in evolution. Brilliant fools were predicted nearly 2,000 years ago.
"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:19-22 KJV)
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 16:25
|
|
- Walter
- Jul 3, 2003
-
We think they're great. In a grand, mystical, neopolitical sense, these guys have a real message in their music. They don't, however, have neat names like me and Bono.
|
Most small town newspapers seem to print at least one of these every couple weeks. It used to drive me nuts when I was a kid, and I even wrote responses a couple times (that were printed).
Personally, I think the papers print these just to troll their readers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 19:23
|
|
- Prism
- Dec 22, 2007
-
yospos
|
Personally, I think the papers print these just to troll their readers.
Sometimes I wonder if the people who write them intentionally conflate abiogenesis with evolution (to say nothing of... this stuff, whatever it is, with evolving metals) to make evolution seem ridiculous, even though the theory of evolution isn't the same thing as a theory of abiogenesis, or whether they really don't understand that they're not the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 19:47
|
|
- Guilty Spork
- Feb 26, 2011
-
Thunder rolled. It rolled a six.
|
Sometimes I wonder if the people who write them intentionally conflate abiogenesis with evolution (to say nothing of... this stuff, whatever it is, with evolving metals) to make evolution seem ridiculous, even though the theory of evolution isn't the same thing as a theory of abiogenesis, or whether they really don't understand that they're not the same thing.
And to cap it off, a part of the Bible that claims you'd have to be dumb to not believe the Bible, because Bible Bible Bible hey look over there!
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 20:22
|
|
- Nintendo Kid
- Aug 4, 2011
-
by Smythe
|
Fact is that small time local papers tend to be more than happy to print anything people send in. It's less column inches they need to fill up by buying opinion pieces and minor stories off various news and wire services. And who's the kind of person who's going to spend time repeatedly submitting stuff to a small time paper? Exactly.
Works both ways too though. If you decided to start sending in response opinion pieces and poo poo, the local paper would probably just run them, and someone might actually pay attention to a contrasting voice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 20:23
|
|
- Mr. Funny Pants
- Apr 9, 2001
-
|
Fact is that small time local papers tend to be more than happy to print anything people send in.
And they don't have to be tiny. My hometown had a population well over 100,000 when I was in high school. I went through this phase where I thought writing letters to the editor was cool and look how I'm owning these adults and blah blah blah, because I was stupid. Anyway, had several dozen letters printed in a few years and if I recall correctly, I only ever had one not printed. I'd like to think it's because of my brilliant logic and elegant prose, but this was a paper that regularly posted letters (from the same gang of idiots) explaining how every Democrat was a socialist/Marxist, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 21:01
|
|
- Shipon
- Nov 7, 2005
-
|
Fact is that small time local papers tend to be more than happy to print anything people send in. It's less column inches they need to fill up by buying opinion pieces and minor stories off various news and wire services. And who's the kind of person who's going to spend time repeatedly submitting stuff to a small time paper? Exactly.
Works both ways too though. If you decided to start sending in response opinion pieces and poo poo, the local paper would probably just run them, and someone might actually pay attention to a contrasting voice.
Just beware they don't misprint your letter and god forbid it be a controversial opinion. I once wrote a letter to the editor advocating single-payer healthcare and they replaced a term with its polar opposite and devoted an entire page to responses to the letter trying to get me on that point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 00:31
|
|
- pig slut lisa
- Mar 5, 2012
-
irl is good
|
My newspaper published a response to my response to that homophobic letter:
Crazy Letter Writer posted:
Where's diversity in homosexuality?
Nice Davis's mind-bending Orwellianism is pure bunk.
First, it is homosexuals who are obsessed with people's sexuality, particularly their own. Homosexuals' entire existence is predicated upon their hedonistic same-sex obsession. The utter hypocrisy of liberal progressives, who used to regale us about how government should stay out of our bedrooms and now want to empower government to politically drag us all into same-sex bedrooms and force us to applaud. No human government has the right or moral power to redefine marriage. What fascist arrogance.
Unfortunately, the homosexual cult has successfully snookered low-information Americans into accepting a hedonistic paganism as a form of marriage-worthy "love" despite homosexuality being a completely sterile sexual perversion inimical to nature's posterity and the protocols of civil society.
Let's be honest for once. Isn't there something perverse and dangerous about highly political nihilists not practicing the very sexuality that resulted in their own existence in the first place?
And to those holier-than-thou new age cultural fascists who worship before the shrine of diversity — tell us, where's the celebration of gender diversity in a homosexual marriage? Heterosexual marriage constitutes a superior sexuality since it creates a posterity, is the foundation of civil society, celebrates gender diversity and is the very means of everyone's existence.
There are many other arguments I'm willing to share that challenge the untruths spewed by the radical homosexual lobby, which seeks to normalize the homosexual "deathstyle" under the banner of marriage.
The homosexual deathstyle sounds pretty 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 00:09
|
|
- Strudel Man
- May 19, 2003
-
ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT
|
Just beware they don't misprint your letter and god forbid it be a controversial opinion. I once wrote a letter to the editor advocating single-payer healthcare and they replaced a term with its polar opposite and devoted an entire page to responses to the letter trying to get me on that point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 00:25
|
|
- TURN IT OFF!
- Dec 26, 2012
-
|
Jesus, I don't know if it's because English isn't my native language, but I can't parse anything of what he wrote. It's like every other word was looked up in a thesaurus and replaced with a word that isn't quite right for the context.
Also "homosex deathstyle" is 18 characters long. Just sayin'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 00:54
|
|
- VideoTapir
- Oct 18, 2005
-
He'll tire eventually.
|
Jesus, I don't know if it's because English isn't my native language, but I can't parse anything of what he wrote. It's like every other word was looked up in a thesaurus and replaced with a word that isn't quite right for the context.
This reminded me of something.
http://twain.lib.virginia.edu/projects/rissetto/offense.html
I'm incapable of reading anything after I've read Mark Twain tearing it to pieces.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 13:34
|
|
- Jazu
- Jan 1, 2006
-
Looking for some URANIUM? CLICK HERE
|
Just beware they don't misprint your letter and god forbid it be a controversial opinion. I once wrote a letter to the editor advocating single-payer healthcare and they replaced a term with its polar opposite and devoted an entire page to responses to the letter trying to get me on that point.
Were you the person who used the word "monopsony"? Because I've never heard anyone use that word before or since. I had to look it up to make sure I remembered the word right. I didn't. Also, Firefox is marking it as a misspelled word.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 13:49
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2024 08:12
|
|
- Crisis
- Mar 1, 2010
-
|
No government has the right to redefine marriage. Except for all the ones that have done so throughout history, I mean.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 14:02
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 17:24
