Where it all began.....
Gunner Asch
Where it all began
A little girl wrote to Sarah Palin and asked; 'How did the human race
start?'
Sarah Palin answered, 'God made Adam and Eve;
They had children; and so was all mankind made.'
Two days later the girl wrote to Michelle Obama
and asked the same question..
Michelle Obama answered,
'Many years ago there were monkeys from which the human race evolved.'
The confused girl went to her father and said,
'Dad, how is it possible that Sarah Palin told me
the Human race was created by God,
And Michelle Obama said they evolved from monkeys.'
The father answered, 'Well, Dear, it is very simple,
Sarah Palin told you about her ancestors
and Michelle Obama told you about hers.'
Chuckle.......
Gunner
"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster
Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton
Dan
>
> Where it all began
>
>
>
> A little girl wrote to Sarah Palin and asked; 'How did the human race
> start?'
>
> Sarah Palin answered, 'God made Adam and Eve;
>
> They had children; and so was all mankind made.'
>
> Two days later the girl wrote to Michelle Obama
> and asked the same question..
>
> Michelle Obama answered,
>
> 'Many years ago there were monkeys from which the human race evolved.'
>
> The confused girl went to her father and said,
>
> 'Dad, how is it possible that Sarah Palin told me
>
> the Human race was created by God,
>
> And Michelle Obama said they evolved from monkeys.'
>
> The father answered, 'Well, Dear, it is very simple,
>
> Sarah Palin told you about her ancestors
>
> and Michelle Obama told you about hers.'
>
>
>
> Chuckle.......
Wow! A recycled 19th century joke. How very modern of you...
Dan
Ed Huntress
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:8ma7h55h3jp9k37qs...@4ax.com...
>
>
> Where it all began
>
>
>
> A little girl wrote to Sarah Palin and asked; 'How did the human race
> start?'
>
> Sarah Palin answered, 'God made Adam and Eve;
>
> They had children; and so was all mankind made.'
>
> Two days later the girl wrote to Michelle Obama
> and asked the same question..
>
> Michelle Obama answered,
>
> 'Many years ago there were monkeys from which the human race evolved.'
>
> The confused girl went to her father and said,
>
> 'Dad, how is it possible that Sarah Palin told me
>
> the Human race was created by God,
>
> And Michelle Obama said they evolved from monkeys.'
>
> The father answered, 'Well, Dear, it is very simple,
>
> Sarah Palin told you about her ancestors
>
> and Michelle Obama told you about hers.'
>
>
>
> Chuckle.......
>
> Gunner
I thought you claimed not to be a racist pig, Gunner. Did you change your
mind?
--
Ed Huntress
XR650L_Dave
Not only racist, but evolution does not state that men evolved from
monkeys.
Dave
dca...@krl.org
> Not only racist, but evolution does not state that men evolved from
> monkeys.
>
> Dave
Please explain how the joke is racist. The joke would be the same if
one substituted Darwin for Michelle and Pat Robertson for Palin.
Dan
XR650L_Dave
Ummm, white people come from god, black people come from monkeys.
If that's not racist, I can't imagine what is.
Dave
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:4233d436-77e2-4cf8...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
Give it up, Dan. When someone says a black person is descended from monkeys
and in the same breath says a white person is descended from God, it's a
overtly racist remark. It always has been, and it is now. It's been grist
for endless racist jokes as long as you or I have been alive, and doubtless
much longer.
There's no ducking or dodging out of that one.
--
Ed Huntress
Gunner Asch
Racist? Where?
Gunner Asch
Your a Democrat...right?
Snicker
pyotr filipivich
<spamT...@yahoo.com> reported Elvis on Tue, 1 Dec 2009 05:51:35
-0800 (PST) in misc.survivalism:
>On Dec 1, 8:09�am, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:
>> On Dec 1, 12:59�pm, XR650L_Dave <spamTHIS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Not only racist, but evolution does not state that men evolved from
>> > monkeys.
>>
>> one substituted Darwin for Michelle and Pat Robertson for Palin.
>>
>> � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Dan
>
>Ummm, white people come from god, black people come from monkeys.
>
>If that's not racist, I can't imagine what is.
Ah, Dave has a set of those "Them right wing racists are
everywhere" magic glasses on.
Interesting how the Democrats and other "progressives" are able to
see racism everywhere, even the "hidden racism".
Reminds me of the girl who wouldn't go out with the guy because he
whistled dirty songs.
Yes, Dave, I'm saying lefties, be they"liberals" "progressives' or
even just plain old Democrats, have a true racist mentality, one which
interprets everything in terms of the racial makeup of the people
involved. Democrats seem quite incapable of believing the Obama's
policies might be the actual subject under discussion, and thus are
forced to assume that all the opposition to his policies must be
merely because he is an African-American.
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
dca...@krl.org
> Give it up, Dan. When someone says a black person is descended from monkeys
> and in the same breath says a white person is descended from God, it's a
> overtly racist remark. It always has been, and it is now. It's been grist
> for endless racist jokes as long as you or I have been alive, and doubtless
> much longer.
>
> There's no ducking or dodging out of that one.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
I think that it is because you are racist. It is you who views
Michelle as Black.
To me she is just another person that believes in evolution. So what
you are saying is that Michelle can not be viewed as another human.
She must always be viewed as Black. Talk about racist.
I am not ducking or dodging. Just don't see the joke as racist, unless
the first thing that comes in you mind when Michelle is mentioned is
Black.
In the same vein as XR650L commenting about evolution not saying that
humans decended from monkeys, the creationists do not say they
decended from God. They say God created humans.
Dan
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:995dc1dc-98e8-473a...@p33g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 1, 2:51 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Give it up, Dan. When someone says a black person is descended from
> monkeys
> and in the same breath says a white person is descended from God, it's a
> overtly racist remark. It always has been, and it is now. It's been grist
> for endless racist jokes as long as you or I have been alive, and
> doubtless
> much longer.
>
> There's no ducking or dodging out of that one.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
I think that it is because you are racist.
<plonk!>
It's getting a lot nicer here now that I've been clearing out the
underbrush.
--
Ed Huntress
dca...@krl.org
>
> I think that it is because you are racist.
>
> <plonk!>
>
> It's getting a lot nicer here now that I've been clearing out the
> underbrush.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
You can google your heart out and I do not think you can find anything
that indicates I am racist. You on the other hand are very pro US and
to hell with third world countries.
I have been clearing out the underbrush too. I have cut down almost
all of the multiflora roses on the property. Will probably be done by
next year.
Dan
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:a509a4ce-e0f7-42b0...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 1, 10:59 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> I think that it is because you are racist.
>
> <plonk!>
>
> It's getting a lot nicer here now that I've been clearing out the
> underbrush.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
>You can google your heart out and I do not think you can find anything
>that indicates I am racist.
<sheesh> Dan, I didn't say *you* were a racist. That was you calling *me* a
racist. The brackets just got screwed up.
I don't think you're a racist. Neither do I tolerate anyone calling me one,
no matter what. I've had enough insults. I'm not wasting another minute
arguing with people who just make me angry.
Now, I'll see if I can the blocking function working right. Have a nice day.
--
Ed Huntress
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
> policies might be the actual subject under discussion, and thus are
> forced to assume that all the opposition to his policies must be merely
> because he is an African-American. -
Well, I don't like hyphenated half-assed Americans of any stripe.
If you're African, what country in Africa were you born in?
I thought that since the black slaves were emancipated,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation
skin color was supposed to be irrelevant?
Craig Ferguson recently became "American on Purpose",
http://www.amazon.com/American-Purpose-LP-Improbable-Adventures/dp/0061885452
and he doesn't call himself a "Scottish-American."
I don't care what color Obama's skin is - I hate him because he's a
God-damned Communist!
Thanks,
Rich
hal
No, you hate him because you're stupid.
>
>Thanks,
>Rich
>
dca...@krl.org
> <sheesh> Dan, I didn't say *you* were a racist. That was you calling *me* a
> racist. The brackets just got screwed up.
>
> I don't think you're a racist. Neither do I tolerate anyone calling me one,
> no matter what. I've had enough insults. I'm not wasting another minute
> arguing with people who just make me angry.
>
> Now, I'll see if I can the blocking function working right. Have a nice day.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
Sorry. With the bracket showing up as they did, I did think you were
saying I was a racist. I think you are a racist only in that you see
race as a factor in more situations than I do. I do not think you
believe whites are superior or should have more rights and privileges
than people of other races.
Dan
Hawke
What do you expect from people who are just as ignorant as the people
that were at the Scopes trial in Tennessee? Back then the anti
evolutionists were a bunch of uneducated bible thumpers. The people
today are no different. Times have changed but not the stupid people.
They are always the same no matter how much time passes.
Hawke
Strabo
> <dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
> news:a509a4ce-e0f7-42b0...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 1, 10:59 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> I think that it is because you are racist.
>>
>> <plonk!>
>>
>> It's getting a lot nicer here now that I've been clearing out the
>> underbrush.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
>> You can google your heart out and I do not think you can find anything
>> that indicates I am racist.
>
> <sheesh> Dan, I didn't say *you* were a racist. That was you calling *me* a
> racist. The brackets just got screwed up.
>
> I don't think you're a racist. Neither do I tolerate anyone calling me one,
> no matter what. I've had enough insults. I'm not wasting another minute
> arguing with people who just make me angry.
>
You subconsciously filled in the variables and arrived at an erroneous
conclusion. It's a logic trap and you fell into it.
A little girl wrote to Sarah Palin and asked;
'How did the human race start?'
Sarah Palin answered, 'God made Adam and Eve;
They had children; and so was all mankind made.'
Two days later the girl wrote to Michelle Obama
and asked the same question..
Michelle Obama answered, 'Many years ago there were
monkeys from which the human race evolved.'
The confused girl went to her father and said,
'Dad, how is it possible that Sarah Palin told me
the Human race was created by God,
And Michelle Obama said they evolved from monkeys.'
The father answered, 'Well, Dear, it is very simple,
Sarah Palin told you about her ancestors
and Michelle Obama told you about hers.'
> Now, I'll see if I can the blocking function working right. Have a nice day.
>
Strabo
> <dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
> news:a509a4ce-e0f7-42b0...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 1, 10:59 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> I think that it is because you are racist.
>>
>> <plonk!>
>>
>> It's getting a lot nicer here now that I've been clearing out the
>> underbrush.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
>> You can google your heart out and I do not think you can find anything
>> that indicates I am racist.
>
> <sheesh> Dan, I didn't say *you* were a racist. That was you calling *me* a
> racist. The brackets just got screwed up.
>
> I don't think you're a racist. Neither do I tolerate anyone calling me one,
> no matter what. I've had enough insults. I'm not wasting another minute
> arguing with people who just make me angry.
>
You subconsciously filled in the variables and arrived at an erroneous
conclusion. It's a logic trap and you fell into it.
A little girl wrote to Sarah Palin and asked;
'How did the human race start?'
Sarah Palin answered, 'God made Adam and Eve;
They had children; and so was all mankind made.'
Two days later the girl wrote to Michelle Obama
and asked the same question..
Michelle Obama answered, 'Many years ago there were
monkeys from which the human race evolved.'
The confused girl went to her father and said,
'Dad, how is it possible that Sarah Palin told me
the Human race was created by God,
And Michelle Obama said they evolved from monkeys.'
The father answered, 'Well, Dear, it is very simple,
Sarah Palin told you about her ancestors
and Michelle Obama told you about hers.'
> Now, I'll see if I can the blocking function working right. Have a nice day.
>
Strabo
> <dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
> news:a509a4ce-e0f7-42b0...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 1, 10:59 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> I think that it is because you are racist.
>>
>> <plonk!>
>>
>> It's getting a lot nicer here now that I've been clearing out the
>> underbrush.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
>> You can google your heart out and I do not think you can find anything
>> that indicates I am racist.
>
> <sheesh> Dan, I didn't say *you* were a racist. That was you calling *me* a
> racist. The brackets just got screwed up.
>
> I don't think you're a racist. Neither do I tolerate anyone calling me one,
> no matter what. I've had enough insults. I'm not wasting another minute
> arguing with people who just make me angry.
>
You subconsciously filled in the variables and arrived at an erroneous
conclusion. It's a logic trap and you fell into it.
A little girl wrote to Sarah Palin and asked;
'How did the human race start?'
Sarah Palin answered, 'God made Adam and Eve;
They had children; and so was all mankind made.'
Two days later the girl wrote to Michelle Obama
and asked the same question..
Michelle Obama answered, 'Many years ago there were
monkeys from which the human race evolved.'
The confused girl went to her father and said,
'Dad, how is it possible that Sarah Palin told me
the Human race was created by God,
And Michelle Obama said they evolved from monkeys.'
The father answered, 'Well, Dear, it is very simple,
Sarah Palin told you about her ancestors
and Michelle Obama told you about hers.'
> Now, I'll see if I can the blocking function working right. Have a nice day.
>
Ed Huntress
"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:gj6bh59eo6rpjkp01...@4ax.com...
>I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that XR650L_Dave
> <spamT...@yahoo.com> reported Elvis on Tue, 1 Dec 2009 05:51:35
> -0800 (PST) in misc.survivalism:
>>On Dec 1, 8:09 am, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:
>>> On Dec 1, 12:59 pm, XR650L_Dave <spamTHIS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > Not only racist, but evolution does not state that men evolved from
>>> > monkeys.
>>>
>>> Please explain how the joke is racist. The joke would be the same if
>>> one substituted Darwin for Michelle and Pat Robertson for Palin.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>
>>Ummm, white people come from god, black people come from monkeys.
>>
>>If that's not racist, I can't imagine what is.
>
> Ah, Dave has a set of those "Them right wing racists are
> everywhere" magic glasses on.
>
> Interesting how the Democrats and other "progressives" are able to
> see racism everywhere, even the "hidden racism".
>
> Reminds me of the girl who wouldn't go out with the guy because he
> whistled dirty songs.
>
> Yes, Dave, I'm saying lefties, be they"liberals" "progressives' or
> even just plain old Democrats, have a true racist mentality, one which
> interprets everything in terms of the racial makeup of the people
> involved.
That's not what a "racist" is. Get out your dictionary and look.
A racist is not one who sees conflicts in terms of racial makeup. It's one
who sees human *characteristics*, and an resulting superiority or
inferiority, as a consequence of race.
Someone who recognizes racism is likely to identify those issues as
conflicts based on race -- usually resulting from the racist attitudes of
one of the parties he's observing and commenting upon. That's just a matter
of paying attention, not racism.
> Democrats seem quite incapable of believing the Obama's
> policies might be the actual subject under discussion, and thus are
> forced to assume that all the opposition to his policies must be
> merely because he is an African-American.
They're probably right to a large degree. The closet racists are having a
field day.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:ec70f1e4-8a4e-4b7c...@o31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
But the latter is what "racism" means, Dan. The former is not. Here's
Webster's:
racism
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and
capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a
particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
rac�ist \-sist also -shist\ noun or adjective
So when you call me a "racist," that's what it means.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
"Strabo" <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in message
news:pZBRm.22758$gd1....@newsfe05.iad...
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>> <dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
>> news:a509a4ce-e0f7-42b0...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 1, 10:59 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I think that it is because you are racist.
>>>
>>> <plonk!>
>>>
>>> It's getting a lot nicer here now that I've been clearing out the
>>> underbrush.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ed Huntress
>>
>>> You can google your heart out and I do not think you can find anything
>>> that indicates I am racist.
>>
>> <sheesh> Dan, I didn't say *you* were a racist. That was you calling *me*
>> a racist. The brackets just got screwed up.
>>
>> I don't think you're a racist. Neither do I tolerate anyone calling me
>> one, no matter what. I've had enough insults. I'm not wasting another
>> minute arguing with people who just make me angry.
>>
>
> You subconsciously filled in the variables and arrived at an erroneous
> conclusion. It's a logic trap and you fell into it.
No, Dan just misunderstands what "racist" means. From what he said later, I
don't think he meant to call me that.
--
Ed Huntress
Jeff R.
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b17bc31$0$31262$607e...@cv.net...
> racism
> 1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and
> capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of
> a particular race
Hmmm...
Does that mean that if I made the innocent observation that African
Americans tend to dominate in, say, basketball and track & field, yet not in
swimming events, would that be a racist observation?
--
Jeff R.
(just wondering)
Ed Huntress
"Jeff R." <em...@this.ng> wrote in message
news:4b1835ec$0$3075$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
It would if you summed it up by saying that they're a superior or inferior
race. That's what racism is.
--
Ed Huntress
Lewis Hartswick
by the (what ever term you wish for the current political
leaders).
Every time someone objects to a proposal by the leader
they are called a "racist".
...lew...
Jeff R.
>
>
> It would if you summed it up by saying that they're a superior or inferior
> race. That's what racism is.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
OK, Ed. I'll make the leap.
"Based on the observable evidence, African Americans are inherently superior
at basketball and track & field, and Caucasians are inherently superior at
swimming."
Is that racist - as such - or is it simply making an observation based upon
observable evidence?
--
Jeff R.
(dead horses flogged - 2� per hour)
HH&C
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:01:31 -0800, Gunner Asch
"Wetback" huh? Didn't you marry a latina?
HH&C
Albert Gore's forefathers?
I'll have you know that their offspring produced a bonafide Nobel
Peace Prize winner.
> Back then the anti
> evolutionists were a bunch of uneducated bible thumpers. The people
> today are no different. Times have changed but not the stupid people.
> They are always the same no matter how much time passes.
>
> Hawke
Wow! Just Wow!
Whatever happened to you guys celebrating diversity???
Dan
The observation you made is not racist; had you gone on to try and make
an unsupported causative connection you would have been racist...
Dan
Dan
Still skirting around a truly racist statement, since you qualified it
so heavily. It leans toward racism since you fail to evaluate
additional factors that could lead to a preponderance of black people in
highly paid professional sports while the amateur sports appear to favor
a lighter complected workforce...
Dan
Ed Huntress
I don't think I'm making myself clear -- or the dictionary isn't. <g> Racism
depends on overall measures of worth as human beings. A white racist
believes that the white race is a superior race. It doesn't mean that the
average white athlete is better or worse; it's an overall evaluation of
human value.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
"Lewis Hartswick" <lhart...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:QcOdnbGX76x53oXW...@earthlink.com...
Dunno, Lew. I didn't believe it much at first, but when I listen to the
really vehement and vicious antagonism toward Obama, and compare it with
that directed against a couple of presidents who had much lower approval
ratings (Reagan and Carter), it's becoming clear that racism is a big
component of it. I expected some, but this is getting serious.
--
Ed Huntress
Jeff R.
>
> I don't think I'm making myself clear -- or the dictionary isn't. <g>
> Racism depends on overall measures of worth as human beings. A white
> racist believes that the white race is a superior race. It doesn't mean
> that the average white athlete is better or worse; it's an overall
> evaluation of human value.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
Thanks Ed.
I don't think the concept can be pigeon-holed quite so simply, 'though.
A person's *intent* should surely figure significantly in any accusation af
"racism", otherwise the statement "African Americans tend to have darker
skin than do Caucasians." Such a statement, unfairly in my mind, will
attract an accusation of racism by the PC crowd.
I guess I'm just trying to argue that mere mention of a person's race does
not constitute "racism".
...and intent is often very difficult to gauge.
--
Jeff R.
Ed Huntress
Well, that's all true. Again, it comes down to a matter of overall human
value, or of value-laden characteristics that one attributes to race.
There are physiological differences that can't be denied, although many of
them are statistical probabilities in a sea of human variation, but it's
pretty clear, I think, when one starts stereotyping matters of character,
moral stature, and so on. Real racists tend to stereotype many things and to
attribute them to race rather than to simple variability among humans.
But I agree that one has to be careful in separating simple differences, on
one hand, from value judgments of character and human worth, on the other.
Usually, it's not very difficult, in my experience.
For example, the "joke" that started this thing is 'way over the line:
"White people are descended from God; black people are descended from
monkeys." Because it's couched as a joke, there is some superficial
deniability involved. But the deniability in this case is something that
only a racist would hide behind.
--
Ed Huntress
Strabo
Would an atheist consider descendency from 'god' a superior or inferior
condition?
1. The "joke" *does not* say "White people are descended from God;
black people are descended from monkeys." You made that decision.
The "joke" concludes, 'Well, Dear, it is very simple, Sarah Palin
told you about her ancestors and Michelle Obama told you about hers.'
2. You presumed that descendency from 'god' is a superior claim. You
filled in the value.
You made a racist/theist conclusion.
Strabo
Diversity? The PC crowd is exclusive and intolerant. Whatever a
Socialist says is opposite his belief.
Ed Huntress
I think he'd say that it was an assumption of superiority by the person who
said it, which is why white racists think it's funny. They see a snide
justification for their belief in their own superiority.
>
> 1. The "joke" *does not* say "White people are descended from God;
> black people are descended from monkeys." You made that decision.
No I didn't. That's what the joke "says." That's what it's all about. If you
don't get it, you need to have your batteries checked. The bulb is getting a
little dim. <g>
>
> The "joke" concludes, 'Well, Dear, it is very simple, Sarah Palin
> told you about her ancestors and Michelle Obama told you about hers.'
Yup.
>
> 2. You presumed that descendency from 'god' is a superior claim. You
> filled in the value.
That's how the joke works. Otherwise, there's nothing to joke about. If that
weren't the case, how could you wind up laughing at Michelle?
Again, check your batteries. You may have gotten the polarities reversed.
>
> You made a racist/theist conclusion.
I drew the conclusion that it's a racist joke for other racists. The theism
just goes along for the ride, but it's a natural fit that reinforces the
joke.
--
Ed Huntress
Dan
Because they want people to think before they act (including talking)???
Talk about projection, Strabo!
> Whatever a Socialist says is opposite his belief.
First you talk about the PC crowd, then you spout off about Socialists.
make up your mind (and do not embarrass yourself by floating the
fallacious claim they are one and the same).
Strabo, you are one of the most intolerant and exclusive people on the
planet. Now, maybe I have you all wrong, and you really think you are
complimenting the "PC crowd," but I am here to tell you that you have
them completely wrong, no matter what you yourself are like.
Of course, if you are talking about the right-wing PC crowd, maybe you
DO have a point...
Dan
Gunner Asch
wrote:
Indeed he did. Clearly and with forethought and malice.
Ed Huntress
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:doehh5lvvkvbcq238...@4ax.com...
If your joke wasn't based on a racist attitude toward Michelle, then why did
you think it was funny? And how, unless you're brain dead, could you not
realize that it would take a racist to write a joke about black people being
descended from monkeys?
You're a phony, Gunner. But we knew that, right?
--
Ed Huntress
Mark Rand
wrote:
>
>For example, the "joke" that started this thing is 'way over the line:
>"White people are descended from God; black people are descended from
>monkeys." Because it's couched as a joke, there is some superficial
>deniability involved. But the deniability in this case is something that
>only a racist would hide behind.
OK, let's rewrite the punch line to make it more believable:-
'Dad, how is it possible that Sarah Palin told me
the Human race was created by God,
And Michelle Obama said they evolved from apes.'
The father answered, 'Well, Dear, it is very simple,
Sarah Palin was poorly educated
and Michelle Obama was well educated.'
<BEG>
Mark Rand
RTFM
dca...@krl.org
> If your joke wasn't based on a racist attitude toward Michelle, then why did
> you think it was funny? And how, unless you're brain dead, could you not
> realize that it would take a racist to write a joke about black people being
> descended from monkeys?
>
> You're a phony, Gunner. But we knew that, right?
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
But the joke like many jokes is funny because the punch line is
unexpected.
That is the element of humor. That is why I think it is funny. It
has the person with the superior intellect, Michelle, being bested by
a person with little intellect. Another trait common for a lot of
jokes. Found often in jokes that have a line in them where someone
say " I am just an old country boy.........."
As I said previously, the joke is funny if you substitute Darwin for
Michelle.
But it is pointless to try to get you to understand. I have never
known you to read replies and change your mind about anything. You
never admit that someone could have a legitimate opinion that differs
from yours.
Dan
Ed Huntress
"Mark Rand" <ra...@internettie.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ng3ih55ja2ck866k1...@4ax.com...
But then there's no punch line. It's no longer a joke. In fact, it just
sounds like the beginning of a thread that will start another flame war.
d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:3719e31b-0a70-41d7...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Suit yourself, Dan. As I said, the joke provides its own thin veneer of
deniability. No doubt Gunner will deny it all; watch him take the
opportunity to respond to your message here to polish up his denial.
But you're just reaching for some mitigating credulity. The audience for
these "little girl" jokes that Gunner and others post here is not going to
be laughing because they really believe, or would admit, that Michelle has
the "superior intellect." Dullard Sarah besting bright Michelle is not an
idea that would fly with them, let alone provide the punchline for a joke.
Understanding your point is one thing; believing it has any reality in the
world as it really is, is quite another.
So you're right about this case, at least; the denials and intellectual
flip-flops, like you're attempting here, are not going to change my mind. I
grew up around a lot of bigots in a few places I've lived. Any joke that
includes a white person descending from God and a black person descending
from monkeys is a dead giveaway: The racists are having a romp. Try the joke
with Darwin instead of Michelle, and see how many laughs you get.
--
Ed Huntress
dca...@krl.org
Try the joke
> with Darwin instead of Michelle, and see how many laughs you get.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
http://www.conradaskland.com/blog/2009/02/evolution-joke/
Dan
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:4e2bd7fd-3bf8-4212...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>http://www.conradaskland.com/blog/2009/02/evolution-joke/
>
> Dan
I see that there was one response: "I am amused." <g>
Try this one -- Gunner's joke. Scroll all the way down:
http://boudicabpi.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/sarah-palin-michelle-obama-and-evolution/
Here's another:
http://philadelphia.craigslist.org/rnr/1452596363.html
And, of course, the Niggermania.net site has a copy, if you have the stomach
to sign in to the site. You can see the illustration without signing in,
though, and it could stand some work:
There are plenty more where they came from. There do seem to be a LOT of
people who made the "black person, monkey" connection, eh?
Those fine folks at the YouTube user site, "MichelleObamaDaWooki,"
contributed this companion joke, along with the one above:
"Hear about Sarah Palin and Michelle Obama posing nude for? magazines
lately? Sarah Palin was seen in Playboy and Michelle Obama was seen in
National Geographic!"
Politicians are getting into the act:
"Commenting on a report posted to Facebook about a gorilla escape at a zoo
in Columbia, S.C., Friday, longtime GOP activist Rusty DePass wrote, 'I'm
sure it's just one of Michelle's ancestors - probably harmless.'"
"When taken to task for the racist comment - and after killing his Facebook
page - DePass said, "I am as sorry as I can be if I offended anyone. The
comment was clearly in jest."
You know, Dan, the easiest way to tell if a joke really is offensive is to
check in with the subjects of the "joke." You can settle this one pretty
quickly, I think. Why don't you go outside and find a black person, and tell
him or her Gunner's joke. See how they react to it.
--
Ed Huntress
dca...@krl.org
You say the joke is not funny unless it is racist. Yet when I show
you that the joke is considered funny with no racist elements, you
ignore the facts and pretend you were not proven wrong. As I said you
seem unable to admit you are wrong.
To me the funniest thing is watching your reactions.
Dan
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:1c275880-b362-49fa...@r40g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Still unable to admit you are wrong.
>
> You say the joke is not funny unless it is racist.
With Sarah Palin and Michelle Obama as the antagonists, yes, that's true.
> Yet when I show
> you that the joke is considered funny with no racist elements, you
> ignore the facts and pretend you were not proven wrong.
I'm not ignoring anything, Dan. The joke works because one party is
viciously putting down another party, and doing it with feigned politeness
as an actual explanation of the difference between the two. The
church-lady-and-doily version is the battle of the sexes and the put-down of
a husband or a wife; the Palin/Obama version is a racist put-down.
I'm astonished that you continue with your wilfull ignoring of the racist
intent of this version of the joke, even after I pointed to the vicious,
doctored photos on the right-wing sites that make it clear that THEY get the
racism -- which they love, BTW. If you looked around at the comments on the
50 or so blog sites that repeat it, you'll see that virtually EVERY COMMENT
acknowledges the racism, either favorably or unfavorably, but they always
recognize it.
> As I said you
> seem unable to admit you are wrong.
And you seem to intentionally blind yourself to a full recognition of what's
going on, to make some meaningless or contrary point, no matter how
ridiculous it is. That's a habit of yours that sometimes drives me nuts.
>
> To me the funniest thing is watching your reactions.
Well then, laugh away. You're welcome to be one of the few people on the
planet who don't recognize the racist intent of this joke. You can join
those who want to tell the joke and spread the racist delight around,
knowing full well that it's racist, but who want to hide behind arguments
such as yours. Congratulations.
--
Ed Huntress
jbsl...@gmail.com
A little more research is needed here also as according to the most
authoritative reference the same entity that created Sarah's ancestors
also created Michelle's, regardless of who/what they might be. In
fact, if we are to believe the joke Michelle must be at least the Mark
II version - the new, improved version - while Sarah is the original,
unimproved model.
If the universal advise - "never buy version I" is to be believed then
the Mark II version is obviously the one to go with.
Regards,
J.B.
dca...@krl.org
> Well then, laugh away. You're welcome to be one of the few people on the
> planet who don't recognize the racist intent of this joke. You can join
> those who want to tell the joke and spread the racist delight around,
> knowing full well that it's racist, but who want to hide behind arguments
> such as yours. Congratulations.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
Whatever. I almost never send jokes to anyone unless they are
extremely funny. This one is a joke, but not especially funny. Not
near as funny as your reaction and attempts to say it is only funny if
it is racist.
Dan
Ed Huntress
"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:danjh5h5hm4eq9ggb...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 07:49:47 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
>>"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
>>> Yes, Dave, I'm saying lefties, be they"liberals" "progressives' or
>>> even just plain old Democrats, have a true racist mentality, one which
>>> interprets everything in terms of the racial makeup of the people
>>> involved.
>>
>>That's not what a "racist" is. Get out your dictionary and look.
>>
>>A racist is not one who sees conflicts in terms of racial makeup. It's one
>>who sees human *characteristics*, and an resulting superiority or
>>inferiority, as a consequence of race.
>>
>>Someone who recognizes racism is likely to identify those issues as
>>conflicts based on race -- usually resulting from the racist attitudes of
>>one of the parties he's observing and commenting upon.
>
> You have to be one to spot one, huh?
Just the opposite. Real racists often deny having any prejudice. They think
they're just reporting what "everyone" sees.
--
Ed Huntress
HH&C
So, Dan, what do you think of the little raptor's intolerance?
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Real racists often deny having any prejudice.
Often? Pretty much always in my experience. It tends to go like this -
"I'm not a racist because I have a <insert minority> <friend,
acquaintance, etc>, but <insert blatantly racist statement>.
>they think they're just reporting what "everyone" sees.
Yup. Got a dose of it the other day from some acquaintances. Their
failure to think logically haunts everything they do, but they can't
see that either.
Wayne
Strabo
I recognize the racist potential but it is simply that, a potential.
A free mind can immediately see the alternative interpretations
leaving its persona free to appreciate the responses on different
levels.
I only point this out because 'the joke' is a good test for cognitive
dissonance. You have a bad case. Your mind is 'wired' in a loop.
This condition is typical of those who identify with the 'left' and
the 'right' paradigm. That's how society becomes locked in an endless
battle of competing forces controlled by agents with ulterior motives.
This is the "liberalism is a mental disorder" as coined by Micheal
Savage.
It's possible to break through and throw off the conditioning if you
work at it.
Ed Huntress
Well, that's a relief. d8-)
> ...but it is simply that, a potential.
Let's ask the obvious question: Do you think that Gunner the Buddhist posted
it here because the punchline is a snide Judeo-Christian religious put-down,
like the church-lady version that Dan posted? Or do you think it's because
it's a vicious political joke that works because it dredges up an old and
obvious racial stereotype, and puts it into service to reinforce the
joke-teller's evocation of the reader's need to feel superior?
While you and Dan contemplate whether there are angels dancing on the head
of this hatpin, practically everyone who comments about it recognizes
IMMEDIATELY the obvious racist intent. Some of them even *like* the racist
intent. Look around the Web for blogs where it's recently been posted with
Michelle Obama as one of the subjects in the joke. You'll see the obvious
response. Don't miss the accompanying illustrations, by the way.
> A free mind can immediately see the alternative interpretations
> leaving its persona free to appreciate the responses on different
> levels.
What's this, have you been reading Harold Bloom? <g> This is not a question
of literary analysis. It's a question of whether you understand the racist
provocation that's been slipped into the "joke," and recognize that the
emotional response to it is overwhelmingly charged with it, to the extent
that almost any American, steeped in the cultural symbols of racism, will
recognize it immediately, and will further recognize that the force of the
joke derives almost entirely from that source.
You're deconstructing the joke and finding a list of possible motives for it
to be written as it is, while you ignore the obvious cultural environment of
it and you further ignore the emotional weights that our society has
attached to the symbols involved. You can't do that with a joke, or any
other device that depends on an emotional response for its function. The
symbols that get the strong emotional responses dominate. The rest is
subsumed.
>
> I only point this out because 'the joke' is a good test for cognitive
> dissonance. You have a bad case. Your mind is 'wired' in a loop.
> This condition is typical of those who identify with the 'left' and
> the 'right' paradigm. That's how society becomes locked in an endless
> battle of competing forces controlled by agents with ulterior motives.
> This is the "liberalism is a mental disorder" as coined by Micheal
> Savage.
Thank you, Doktor Fleet. <g> All I can say it, keep your day job.
>
> It's possible to break through and throw off the conditioning if you
> work at it.
Strabo, we saw the results of your deconditioning a while ago, when you
identified extortion and rape as "liberty and freedom." If your ideas are
evidence of breaking free of one's conditioning, it's not a place in which I
would want to join you. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
dca...@krl.org
> Let's ask the obvious question: Do you think that Gunner the Buddhist posted
> it here because the punchline is a snide Judeo-Christian religious put-down,
> like the church-lady version that Dan posted? Or do you think it's because
> it's a vicious political joke that works because it dredges up an old and
> obvious racial stereotype, and puts it into service to reinforce the
> joke-teller's evocation of the reader's need to feel superior?
>
Actually I think Gunner posted it because it upsets a lot of the far
left and their reaction is amusing. Gunner seems to like posting
things that annoy those on the far left. Exactly the same as TMT
likes to post things that upsets the far right. They are both
trolling and Gunner hooked you.
> While you and Dan contemplate whether there are angels dancing on the head
> of this hatpin, practically everyone who comments about it recognizes
> IMMEDIATELY the obvious racist intent. Some of them even *like* the racist
> intent. Look around the Web for blogs where it's recently been posted with
> Michelle Obama as one of the subjects in the joke. You'll see the obvious
> response. Don't miss the accompanying illustrations, by the way.
>
Again poor logic. If you get to count " practically everyone who
comments about it " as being any sort of proof. Then I get to count
all those that do not comment about it. I mean to say that everyone
that comments about it is a biased sample. Those that do not comment
( a much bigger number ) do not see a obvious racist intent or at
least an ineffective racist intent. Only those that see a racist
intent are going to comment.
Dan
> Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:996909c0-d4f3-4481...@e7g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 11, 12:51 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Let's ask the obvious question: Do you think that Gunner the Buddhist
> posted
> it here because the punchline is a snide Judeo-Christian religious
> put-down,
> like the church-lady version that Dan posted? Or do you think it's because
> it's a vicious political joke that works because it dredges up an old and
> obvious racial stereotype, and puts it into service to reinforce the
> joke-teller's evocation of the reader's need to feel superior?
>
>Actually I think Gunner posted it because it upsets a lot of the far
>left and their reaction is amusing. Gunner seems to like posting
>things that annoy those on the far left. Exactly the same as TMT
>likes to post things that upsets the far right. They are both
>trolling and Gunner hooked you.
Racism does upset me. This was a race-baiting joke. That's all it was, and
Gunner's life is such a disaster that he'll say anything to make himself
feel better about it. Putting others down is his primary tool for that. He
invests more effort in polishing his insults than he does in trying to find
a way out of the mess he's created for himself.
And the logically conclusive point of your statement, that the left gets
upset about racism, while the right apparently does not, is something you'll
want to examine before trying that line of reasoning again.
> While you and Dan contemplate whether there are angels dancing on the head
> of this hatpin, practically everyone who comments about it recognizes
> IMMEDIATELY the obvious racist intent. Some of them even *like* the racist
> intent. Look around the Web for blogs where it's recently been posted with
> Michelle Obama as one of the subjects in the joke. You'll see the obvious
> response. Don't miss the accompanying illustrations, by the way.
>
>Again poor logic. If you get to count " practically everyone who
>comments about it " as being any sort of proof. Then I get to count
>all those that do not comment about it. I mean to say that everyone
>that comments about it is a biased sample.
I gave you links to sites that cater to both the left and the right. They
all found it to be racist. So did Gunner, or he wouldn't have posted it.
> Those that do not comment
>( a much bigger number ) do not see a obvious racist intent or at
>least an ineffective racist intent. Only those that see a racist
>intent are going to comment.
The number who don't see a racist intent, I will suggest, is quite small. So
far, it's you. Period. Even Strabo recognized it.
--
Ed Huntress
Strabo
You, Curly and Dodecahedron do a great job babysitting Gunner.
>
> While you and Dan contemplate whether there are angels dancing on the head
> of this hatpin, practically everyone who comments about it recognizes
> IMMEDIATELY the obvious racist intent. Some of them even *like* the racist
> intent. Look around the Web for blogs where it's recently been posted with
> Michelle Obama as one of the subjects in the joke. You'll see the obvious
> response. Don't miss the accompanying illustrations, by the way.
>
>> A free mind can immediately see the alternative interpretations
>> leaving its persona free to appreciate the responses on different
>> levels.
>
> What's this, have you been reading Harold Bloom? <g> This is not a question
> of literary analysis. It's a question of whether you understand the racist
> provocation that's been slipped into the "joke," and recognize that the
> emotional response to it is overwhelmingly charged with it, to the extent
> that almost any American, steeped in the cultural symbols of racism, will
> recognize it immediately, and will further recognize that the force of the
> joke derives almost entirely from that source.
>
> You're deconstructing the joke and finding a list of possible motives for it
> to be written as it is, while you ignore the obvious cultural environment of
> it and you further ignore the emotional weights that our society has
> attached to the symbols involved. You can't do that with a joke, or any
> other device that depends on an emotional response for its function. The
> symbols that get the strong emotional responses dominate. The rest is
> subsumed.
>
Yep, deconstruction takes all the fun out of it. I just don't feel
very racist.
>
>> I only point this out because 'the joke' is a good test for cognitive
>> dissonance. You have a bad case. Your mind is 'wired' in a loop.
>> This condition is typical of those who identify with the 'left' and
>> the 'right' paradigm. That's how society becomes locked in an endless
>> battle of competing forces controlled by agents with ulterior motives.
>> This is the "liberalism is a mental disorder" as coined by Micheal
>> Savage.
>
> Thank you, Doktor Fleet. <g> All I can say it, keep your day job.
>
>> It's possible to break through and throw off the conditioning if you
>> work at it.
>
> Strabo, we saw the results of your deconditioning a while ago, when you
> identified extortion and rape as "liberty and freedom." If your ideas are
> evidence of breaking free of one's conditioning, it's not a place in which I
> would want to join you. d8-)
>
If that's all you got from my lecture, it's too late to drop the
course.
Strabo
> On Dec 11, 12:51 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Let's ask the obvious question: Do you think that Gunner the Buddhist posted
>> it here because the punchline is a snide Judeo-Christian religious put-down,
>> like the church-lady version that Dan posted? Or do you think it's because
>> it's a vicious political joke that works because it dredges up an old and
>> obvious racial stereotype, and puts it into service to reinforce the
>> joke-teller's evocation of the reader's need to feel superior?
>>
>
> Actually I think Gunner posted it because it upsets a lot of the far
> left and their reaction is amusing. Gunner seems to like posting
> things that annoy those on the far left. Exactly the same as TMT
> likes to post things that upsets the far right. They are both
> trolling and Gunner hooked you.
>
It's that cognitive dissonance thing. Kind of like trolling for
cancerous fish.
Jim Stewart
> I only point this out because 'the joke' is a good test for cognitive
> dissonance. You have a bad case. Your mind is 'wired' in a loop.
> This condition is typical of those who identify with the 'left' and
> the 'right' paradigm. That's how society becomes locked in an endless
> battle of competing forces controlled by agents with ulterior motives.
> This is the "liberalism is a mental disorder" as coined by Micheal
> Savage.
Damn, I love a good amateur psychiatrist on a metalworking forum..
dca...@krl.org
> And the logically conclusive point of your statement, that the left gets
> upset about racism, while the right apparently does not, is something you'll
> want to examine before trying that line of reasoning again.
>
I do not understand what you are trying to say in the above
paragraph. What do you think my line of reasoning is?
I find that there are those on the far right that are racist against
blacks. But not all on the far right are racist against blacks. And
some on the far left that are racist against Jews and Chinese.
> >Again poor logic. If you get to count " practically everyone who
> >comments about it " as being any sort of proof. Then I get to count
> >all those that do not comment about it. I mean to say that everyone
> >that comments about it is a biased sample.
>
> I gave you links to sites that cater to both the left and the right. They
> all found it to be racist. So did Gunner, or he wouldn't have posted it.
>
> > Those that do not comment
> >( a much bigger number ) do not see a obvious racist intent or at
> >least an ineffective racist intent. Only those that see a racist
> >intent are going to comment.
>
> The number who don't see a racist intent, I will suggest, is quite small. So
> far, it's you. Period. Even Strabo recognized it.
And I suggest that millions did not consider the joke racist and did
not comment. What you suggest is just what you suggest. It has no
logic to it.
Strabo recognized that some would consider it racist. I do not
believe that he considered it racist. So far the only argument that
the joke is racist seems to be that one of the people is black and it
is a joke. This logic would say that any joke with a black person
involved is racist. There is no real logic in that.
Whether it is a racist joke or not, should not depend on whether
anyone considers it racist. There needs to be a better rational than
that.
Can you come up with a definition of what constitutes a racist joke?
It seems to me that it would have to imply someone of race is superior
or inferior. The very best you could claim for this joke is that it
implies someone's ancestor's millions of years ago are inferior. But
since both sides really believe that everyone decended either from
Adam and Eve or from a primate the joke comes down to whether one
believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible or in the theory of
evolution. There is no real logic in the joke. It is just a joke.
Has a ending that one does not expect.
Dan
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
ATP*
Ed Huntress
Any line of reasoning that leads to such a nutty conclusion usually is very
nutty itself. All I can tell you is that it confirmed my judgment about the
things you were saying. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Strabo
> On Dec 11, 3:40 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>> And the logically conclusive point of your statement, that the left gets
>> upset about racism, while the right apparently does not, is something you'll
>> want to examine before trying that line of reasoning again.
>>
>
> I do not understand what you are trying to say in the above
> paragraph. What do you think my line of reasoning is?
>
> I find that there are those on the far right that are racist against
> blacks. But not all on the far right are racist against blacks. And
> some on the far left that are racist against Jews and Chinese.
>
With apologies to Jim Stewart...just one more post...
...it's my opinion that Ed doesn't see those possibilities. Most people
probably don't. After all, if most people had that capacity there'd
be fewer problems in the world.
Can't we all just get along?
The method of reasoning that formed Ed's conclusion of inherent
racism in the joke also determines his preconceived notions of
individual behavior. These he applies through political labeling.
To wit: if you did not perceive racism in the joke, he concludes,
you must be on the 'right'; if you are on the 'right' then you must
be [fill in the blank] and therefore unacceptable.
When presented with a proposition like "Hitler liked puppies"
Ed's mind would stall and then go into rationalization mode as
it concocts various means how a megalomaniac psychopath
could possibly relate to puppies. This would be complicated by
Ed's presumption that puppies could not possibly like Hitler,
and so on.
Ed would likely conclude that the statement was somehow in error,
and then quickly find a plane of reference with which he could
find acceptable or comfortable.
>
>
>>> Again poor logic. If you get to count " practically everyone who
>>> comments about it " as being any sort of proof. Then I get to count
>>> all those that do not comment about it. I mean to say that everyone
>>> that comments about it is a biased sample.
>> I gave you links to sites that cater to both the left and the right. They
>> all found it to be racist. So did Gunner, or he wouldn't have posted it.
>>
>>> Those that do not comment
>>> ( a much bigger number ) do not see a obvious racist intent or at
>>> least an ineffective racist intent. Only those that see a racist
>>> intent are going to comment.
>> The number who don't see a racist intent, I will suggest, is quite small. So
>> far, it's you. Period. Even Strabo recognized it.
>
> And I suggest that millions did not consider the joke racist and did
> not comment. What you suggest is just what you suggest. It has no
> logic to it.
>
> Strabo recognized that some would consider it racist. I do not
> believe that he considered it racist. So far the only argument that
> the joke is racist seems to be that one of the people is black and it
> is a joke. This logic would say that any joke with a black person
> involved is racist. There is no real logic in that.
> Whether it is a racist joke or not, should not depend on whether
> anyone considers it racist. There needs to be a better rational than
> that.
>
The structure of the joke (or test) itself is content neutral. The
identities of the players will clue the mind into applying moral value.
From a cultural standpoint, change the identities and the moral values
will change. As the moral values change, so will judgment and emotion.
Ed's values were presumptively racist. But Ed's mind goes a step further
and blocks its own capacity to simultaneously impose various identities
which could then stimulate different moral values. This capacity is
what expands the richness or potential of the joke.
OK Jim, I'm out of here.
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:d24277a6-5516-4ec3...@19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 11, 3:40 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> And the logically conclusive point of your statement, that the left gets
> upset about racism, while the right apparently does not, is something
> you'll
> want to examine before trying that line of reasoning again.
>
>I do not understand what you are trying to say in the above
>paragraph. What do you think my line of reasoning is?
You said that Gunner posted it "because it upsets the far left," and "only
those who see a racist intent are going to comment." So you're saying that
those on the left see the racism; those on the right are blind to it. Right?
Only it's clearly not right. Again, if you followed those links I posted,
right-wing racists caught on to the racist intent just as well as the
anti-racists caught on to it. FWIW, you're implying that Gunner posted it
because he knew it would be perceived as a racist joke by those people on
the left that he doesn't like. Jokes are all about perception -- no
perception, no joke -- so he intentionally invoked racism to antagonize the
people who object to racism. In this case, whether it's really meant as a
joke or not, you've said its intent was to antagonize, and the perception by
those people Gunner scorns -- people on the left -- perceived it exactly as
he intended, as overt racism.
But I recall that you had a unique definition of "racism" to begin with. I'm
talking about the term as you'll find it defined in Webster's or other
dictionaries.
>I find that there are those on the far right that are racist against
>blacks. But not all on the far right are racist against blacks. And
>some on the far left that are racist against Jews and Chinese.
I don't know where you live, or what kinds of people "on the left" you're
talking about, Dan. Where I live, near NYC, there isn't much overt racism,
and that which there is comes from people who don't like change of any kind.
We know which end of the political spectrum they come from, correct?
> >Again poor logic. If you get to count " practically everyone who
> >comments about it " as being any sort of proof. Then I get to count
> >all those that do not comment about it. I mean to say that everyone
> >that comments about it is a biased sample.
>
> I gave you links to sites that cater to both the left and the right. They
> all found it to be racist. So did Gunner, or he wouldn't have posted it.
>
> > Those that do not comment
> >( a much bigger number ) do not see a obvious racist intent or at
> >least an ineffective racist intent. Only those that see a racist
> >intent are going to comment.
Which were the people Gunner was aiming at -- those on the left, correct?
Otherwise, if he didn't recognize the racism inherent in the "joke," why
would he have posted it in the first place? You said his intent was to upset
the left; that the only people who get upset are those who see racist
intent; certainly Gunner knows this, so his intent was to use racism to
upset them. Do you deny this?
>
> The number who don't see a racist intent, I will suggest, is quite small.
> So
> far, it's you. Period. Even Strabo recognized it.
>And I suggest that millions did not consider the joke racist and did
>not comment. What you suggest is just what you suggest. It has no
>logic to it.
Your "logic" has led you into a trap. If the joke isn't racist, and if
Gunner didn't intend for it to be taken that way, how was he going to upset
the left?
> Strabo recognized that some would consider it racist. I do not
>believe that he considered it racist.
Frankly, I don't care what he considers it to be. He recognized the racism
at work.
> So far the only argument that
>the joke is racist seems to be that one of the people is black and it
>is a joke. This logic would say that any joke with a black person
>involved is racist.
Most are.
> There is no real logic in that.
Logic or not, it's the fact of the matter.
>Whether it is a racist joke or not, should not depend on whether
>anyone considers it racist. There needs to be a better rational than
>that.
Nonsense. A joke is what it is perceived to be.
>Can you come up with a definition of what constitutes a racist joke?
>It seems to me that it would have to imply someone of race is superior
>or inferior. The very best you could claim for this joke is that it
>implies someone's ancestor's millions of years ago are inferior. But
>since both sides really believe that everyone decended either from
>Adam and Eve or from a primate the joke comes down to whether one
>believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible or in the theory of
>evolution. There is no real logic in the joke.
Fer chrissake, it's a joke, not a syllogism.
> It is just a joke.
>Has a ending that one does not expect.
Then why did you say that Gunner posted it to antagonize the left?
You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth, Dan. What is it --
was it intended to evoke a recognition of the racist character of the joke,
or not? And if not, how was it supposed to antagonize the left?
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> dca...@krl.org wrote:
>> On Dec 11, 3:40 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> And the logically conclusive point of your statement, that the left gets
>>> upset about racism, while the right apparently does not, is something
>>> you'll
>>> want to examine before trying that line of reasoning again.
>>>
>>
>> I do not understand what you are trying to say in the above
>> paragraph. What do you think my line of reasoning is?
>>
>> I find that there are those on the far right that are racist against
>> blacks. But not all on the far right are racist against blacks. And
>> some on the far left that are racist against Jews and Chinese.
>>
>
> With apologies to Jim Stewart...just one more post...
>
> ...it's my opinion that Ed doesn't see those possibilities. Most people
> probably don't. After all, if most people had that capacity there'd
> be fewer problems in the world.
Look, this "joke" is not about syllogisms, or literary analysis, or
"possibilities." It's about evoking an emotional reaction. A joke is what
it's perceived to be by the person reading or listening, and the reaction is
an emotional one. We don't sit around analyzing the "possibilities" before
deciding whether to laugh or to groan. The rest is so much baloney.
The point is, as Dan said, Gunner posted the joke to antagonize the left,
who he knew would react with anger to the racist loading of a dismissive
joke about Michelle Obama being descended from monkeys. He knew how it would
be perceived; he posted it intentionally to evoke that antagonism; he got
what he wanted.
And what he wanted was to provoke anger over racism while hiding behind a
thin veil of deniability. He can count on a crackpot or two helping him to
hold up the veil. Enter Dan and Strabo...
That's really the whole story here.
--
Ed Huntress
Don Foreman
>But it is pointless to try to get you to understand. I have never
>known you to read replies and change your mind about anything. You
>never admit that someone could have a legitimate opinion that differs
>from yours.
>
> Dan
I don't have a dog in this fight but I've noticed that too.
Ed Huntress
"Don Foreman" <dfor...@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote in message
news:u4h6i5hlfnpbahh6a...@4ax.com...
Why would anyone change his mind based on someone else's *opinion*, Don?
That is, unless he has a weak mind or doesn't trust his own judgment.
We change our minds when we learn new *facts*, or reconsider the facts we
have before us. Dan is entitled to his opinion, including his opinion that
*my* judgment about the facts of this case are wrong. And I'm entitled to
mine.
--
Ed Huntress
dca...@krl.org
> >>But it is pointless to try to get you to understand. I have never
> >>known you to read replies and change your mind about anything. You
> >>never admit that someone could have a legitimate opinion that differs
> >>from yours.
>
> >> Dan
>
>
> Why would anyone change his mind based on someone else's *opinion*, Don?
> That is, unless he has a weak mind or doesn't trust his own judgment.
>
> We change our minds when we learn new *facts*, or reconsider the facts we
> have before us. Dan is entitled to his opinion, including his opinion that
> *my* judgment about the facts of this case are wrong. And I'm entitled to
> mine.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
You also need to improve your reading comprehension. I said I never
have known you to read replies and change your mind. That would
include replies that present new facts. An example would be when you
said that the joke would only be considered funny as a racist joke.
But then I showed you that there was a web site that had essentially
the same joke but with no racist elements. That was a fact, not an
opinion.
I agree that you should not change your mind based on opinions. That
is why your argument that a number of people had opinions that the
joke is racist did not cut any ice with me. That is not a legitimate
argument as far as I am concerned. My argument is that I do not see
that you have any objective criteria to say the joke is racist or
not.
But I have to admit you did say I was entitled to my opinion. But I
don't think you went so far as to say it was a legitimate opinion.
Dan
John R. Carroll
> On Dec 12, 8:34 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>> But it is pointless to try to get you to understand. I have never
>>>> known you to read replies and change your mind about anything. You
>>>> never admit that someone could have a legitimate opinion that
>>>> differs from yours.
>>
>>>> Dan
>>
>
>>
>> Why would anyone change his mind based on someone else's *opinion*,
>> Don? That is, unless he has a weak mind or doesn't trust his own
>> judgment.
>>
>> We change our minds when we learn new *facts*, or reconsider the
>> facts we have before us. Dan is entitled to his opinion, including
>> his opinion that *my* judgment about the facts of this case are
>> wrong. And I'm entitled to mine.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
> You also need to improve your reading comprehension. I said I never
> have known you to read replies and change your mind. That would
> include replies that present new facts. An example would be when you
> said that the joke would only be considered funny as a racist joke.
> But then I showed you that there was a web site that had essentially
> the same joke but with no racist elements.
And a different joke Dan.
Are you really this stupid or just being obtuse?
--
John R. Carroll
dca...@krl.org
> And a different joke Dan.
> Are you really this stupid or just being obtuse?
>
> --
> John R. Carroll
whatever.
Dan
Don Foreman
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>"Don Foreman" <dfor...@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote in message
>news:u4h6i5hlfnpbahh6a...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 05:49:25 -0800 (PST), "dca...@krl.org"
>> <dca...@krl.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But it is pointless to try to get you to understand. I have never
>>>known you to read replies and change your mind about anything. You
>>>never admit that someone could have a legitimate opinion that differs
>>>from yours.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>
>> I don't have a dog in this fight but I've noticed that too.
>
>Why would anyone change his mind based on someone else's *opinion*, Don?
A considered differing opinion from a respected or even plausible
source might motivate one to re-examine the bases (plural basis) for
one's own opinion: facts, logic, judgement, beliefs, preferences and
tastes.
>We change our minds when we learn new *facts*, or reconsider the facts we
>have before us.
Dan merely noted that he's never known you to do that. I don't recall
any instances either.
>Dan is entitled to his opinion, including his opinion that
>*my* judgment about the facts of this case are wrong. And I'm entitled to
>mine.
I'd say that counts as an admission that another can have a legit
opinion differing from yours. <G>
Ed Huntress
"Don Foreman" <dfor...@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote in message
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:34:15 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Don Foreman" <dfor...@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote in message
>>news:u4h6i5hlfnpbahh6a...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 05:49:25 -0800 (PST), "dca...@krl.org"
>>> <dca...@krl.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>But it is pointless to try to get you to understand. I have never
>>>>known you to read replies and change your mind about anything. You
>>>>never admit that someone could have a legitimate opinion that differs
>>>>from yours.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>
>>> I don't have a dog in this fight but I've noticed that too.
>>
>>Why would anyone change his mind based on someone else's *opinion*, Don?
>
> A considered differing opinion from a respected or even plausible
> source might motivate one to re-examine the bases (plural basis) for
> one's own opinion: facts, logic, judgement, beliefs, preferences and
> tastes.
>
>>We change our minds when we learn new *facts*, or reconsider the facts we
>>have before us.
>
> Dan merely noted that he's never known you to do that. I don't recall
> any instances either.
That's not what you said.
>
>>Dan is entitled to his opinion, including his opinion that
>>*my* judgment about the facts of this case are wrong. And I'm entitled to
>>mine.
>
> I'd say that counts as an admission that another can have a legit
> opinion differing from yours. <G>
Dan is entitled to his opinion. He isn't entitled to expect me to change
*my* opinion to agree with his.
Right now, Dan's opinion is that the "joke" in question isn't inherently
racist, and that most people -- I think he said "millions" wouldn't
recognize this "joke" as being racist. To which I say, one would have to
live in a cave not to recognize that this is an inherently racist joke. In
fact, it's made the top of the hit list:
http://www.racist-jokes.com/index.php?cat=niggers&page=page1
It's number one!
John Carroll pointed out that this "joke" is a different joke from the
church-lady version that Dan is proffering as the same joke. It is a
different joke, because loading it with a racial component evokes the
African/monkey issue that was the basis of much racism in this country for a
century. There isn't a normal, sentient person in this country who doesn't
recognize the "descended from monkeys" connection in American racist lore.
It's just like two other jokes that are making the rounds of the racist
pigs, one that was passed on last summer by a S.C. GOP politician, who said
that an escaped gorilla was probably one of Michelle's relatives, and
another one in which a bus rider offers to hold Michelle's monkey -- her
daughter -- while she tells off the bus driver.
So I don't believe Dan. I think he's bullshitting in order to make one of
his contrarian points. My opinions are not likely to be influenced by the
opinions of people like Dan or Strabo, who have a consistently weird take on
the world and who have a reductionist idea of what logic is -- that
everything, including jokes, can be reduced to a kind of syllogism.
Last week Dan called me a "racist." I have no regard for his opinions.
Neither he nor Strabo are "plausible" sources, to use your term.
--
Ed Huntress
Don Foreman
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
You're right, Mr. Editor, it's not precisely what I said before. The
first statement, being only one sentence, was perhaps not sufficiently
precise and detailed to meet your editorial standards. The second
statement was intended as clarification rather than cause confusion.
>>
>>>Dan is entitled to his opinion, including his opinion that
>>>*my* judgment about the facts of this case are wrong. And I'm entitled to
>>>mine.
>>
>> I'd say that counts as an admission that another can have a legit
>> opinion differing from yours. <G>
>
>Dan is entitled to his opinion. He isn't entitled to expect me to change
>*my* opinion to agree with his.
>
>Right now, Dan's opinion is that the "joke" in question isn't inherently
>racist, and that most people -- I think he said "millions" wouldn't
>recognize this "joke" as being racist. To which I say, one would have to
>live in a cave not to recognize that this is an inherently racist joke. In
>fact, it's made the top of the hit list:
>
>http://www.racist-jokes.com/index.php?cat=niggers&page=page1
>
>It's number one!
That website merely establishes that blatant and offensive racists tag
a racial connotation to the joke, as do you. I'm a whitey but I grew
up in Detroit as a minority and I think the racial tag to the joke is
a long reach.
Assuming that you're a whitey, oops Caucasian, who are you to presume
to judge whether or not the joke is offensive to black folks? Do you
fancy yourself as a gallant liberally-educated guilty white champion
of the inferior and oppressed? Anyone of any color who accepts
evolution accepts that we're all descended from monkeys or apes or
some such ancient ancestral creature. Most of us, perhaps including
you, are not taxonomists. The joke could be about science vs religion.
Ed Huntress
"Don Foreman" <dfor...@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote in message
It's offensive to *me*. And I can assure you that it's offensive to
practically everyone I know.
> Do you
> fancy yourself as a gallant liberally-educated guilty white champion
> of the inferior and oppressed? Anyone of any color who accepts
> evolution accepts that we're all descended from monkeys or apes or
> some such ancient ancestral creature. Most of us, perhaps including
> you, are not taxonomists. The joke could be about science vs religion.
That's something that distinguishes cultural conservatives from the rest of
us, Don. Even after 50 years or so of changing attitudes in the country as a
whole, the conservatives resist (and resent) any implication that they're
part of the continuing problem, that the remnants of behavior and speech
they see as equanimity in the face of unwarranted criticism actually is
foot-dragging that perpetuates the problem.
It's endemic to the conservative parts of the country. It isn't racism
itself; my guess is that most conservatives aren't deeply racist today,
although most racists are profoundly conservative -- perhaps "reactionary"
is more accurate. It's a defensiveness about the speech and attitudes
they've always known, which the rest of us have made an effort to change for
the sake of minimizing blatant offensiveness. I don't get nutsy about it but
I do try to avoid thoughtless offensiveness based on religion, race, or
gender. There's no need for it. Even as a hard-nosed editor, I've gotten
over misuse of the indefinite pronoun and disagreements of number. <g>
Conservatism, after all, means resistance to change. That's the fundamental
definition of the term.
And it isn't that you don't get it. Even Strabo, as extreme a reactionary as
you're likely to find outside of captivity, gets it. You just don't like
seeing it identified as racist. It confronts and offends your conservative
valuations, because it challenges your self-image of racial equanimity with
a negative judgment about your speech and its underlying attitudes.
Gunner gets it. That's why he repeated it here -- to get a rise out of
anyone who's serious about anti-racism, who tend to be leftish. As Dan said,
he did it to antagonize. And why would it antagonize? Because it's a racist
put-down of Michelle Obama. It would have gotten the antagonism he desired
if it was about Dr. Dre. The "joke" works, or rather the vicious antagonism
works, because it's deeply racist to compare a black person and a white one
by saying that the first is descended from monkeys, while the second is not.
And that kind of racism is offensive to many of us. Not here on this NG,
necessarily, because this interest group tends to attract a very
conservative bunch, but in the country as a whole.
It's almost funny, but not quite, to see you and Dan analyze the structure
and form of the "joke," and to run it through Dan's syllogism machine, in
order to show that the joke is not inherently racist. But as I say too
often, perhaps, logic breaks down in extreme cases because premises are
never complete. In this case, you've stripped away the key element of the
premise -- the fact that Sarah Palin is white, and Michelle is black. With
that fact stripped out, the monkey/Adam-and-Eve references lose their racist
punch. It's just a safe, tittering, church-lady joke. With the racist
identities put in there, and with the universal knowledge among adults in
this country that associating black people with monkeys is one of the most
vile remnants of blatant racism, it's cruel and vicious.
Gunner got the reaction he wanted. Several people piped up and called it
racist. I doubt if there was anyone who didn't recognize the racist
implications, but this kind of "joke" is a real gift to the racism-inclined,
and to those conservatives who aren't necessarily racist but who think there
is entirely too much criticism of racial discriminations. You can hide
behind this "joke." In fact, Gunner did, almost immediately. As I said to
Dan, it provides its own veil of deniability, which Dan, and now you, are
shoring up with arguments that, to me, are transparent as window glass and
downright silly.
I've asked Dan a couple of times why, if he recognizes that Gunner was
trying to antagonize the lefties with this "joke," it could be antagonistic
if it were just the safe, tame G-rated joke that he claims it is. He hasn't
answered me. That's because he can't. He recognizes, as I'm sure you do,
that the joke works because of the racial antagonism. Otherwise, it's just a
chuckle. Do you think that Gunner posted it here just to get a couple of
titters out of the left? No? Then what the hell are you talking about?
--
Ed Huntress
Don Foreman
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
Wow! Well, I still don't find it offensive (or particularly amusing
for that matter), but I can respect the fact that you do, as do
practically everyone that you know.
While I can see how being compared to a monkey is probably intended to
be pejorative, like "skunk", "dirty rat", etc, I don't share the
"universal knowledge" that it is particularly vile, cruel or vicious.
Matter of fact, when my granddaughter (who has brown skin) was asked
at age 3 or so what she'd like to be when she grows up, after careful
thought she said, "a monkey!" "Oh, why?" "They like to swing, they
like bananas, and they always have big happy smiles." (This spoken
with a pronounced British accent because Bella lives in London -- and
likes to swing at the park and likes bananas.)
Ed Huntress
"Don Foreman" <dfor...@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote in message
Ask her again in 10 or 12 years.
--
Ed Huntress
dca...@krl.org
> I've asked Dan a couple of times why, if he recognizes that Gunner was
> trying to antagonize the lefties with this "joke," it could be antagonistic
> if it were just the safe, tame G-rated joke that he claims it is. He hasn't
> answered me. That's because he can't. He recognizes, as I'm sure you do,
> that the joke works because of the racial antagonism. Otherwise, it's just a
> chuckle. Do you think that Gunner posted it here just to get a couple of
> titters out of the left? No? Then what the hell are you talking about?
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
Actually it is easy to answer. But the answer only makes sense to
people that do not have a knee jerk reaction. And the answer is that
some people have a knee jerk reaction. Most of the people in RCM are
not posting in this thread because to them the joke is just a chuckle
regardless of who is named in the joke.
I did not answer before because I was certain it would not convince
you and everyone who sees it as just a chuckle already knows the
answer.
Dan
Winston
(...)
> Most of the people in RCM are not posting in this thread because to them the
> joke is just a chuckle regardless of who is named in the joke.
Speak for yourself, Dan.
--Winston
--
Congratulations Robert Piccinini and Steven A. Burd, WalMart Publicists of the Year!
John R. Carroll
Being compared to ""skunk", "dirty rat", etc," isn't relevant in this
context Dan.
Blacks were demonized as a sub human branch of our species akin to apes for
hundreds of years.
The Jew's, and others, have been subjected to the same dehumanizing behavior
on and off throughout history and there is an actual reason for this sort of
thing. It's a lot easier to dispose of or mistreat any group when you
disassociate yourself from them.
That is what all of this "Birther" stuff is really about. The "Birthers" see
Obama as an outsider - not one of US - and it's cloaked in their idiocy
about his citizenship. They really don't care one way or the other about his
citizenship. He's a nigger to them, and that's the problem they have. There
isn't a birth certificate in the world that will change his race, and that
is what would be necessary.
Humor has frequently been used to provide a veneer of acceptability to this
stuff. It's a foot in the door.
Any time you want to see what really good racial humor is like go see Steve
Harvey, Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock, Robin Williams or any of the really good
comics live. Dave Chappel was really funny until he lost his mind.
Sumpin's wrong with that guy.
You have probably forgotten, or weren't aware, that during both the primary
amd election campaigns, hundreds of thousands of people were offended enough
by just this sort of "joke" to publicly change their facebook names to
include "Hussein". That's what happens when good old boy humor backfires.
"palin' Around with Terrorists" blew right up in Sarah Palin and John
McCain's face. You see, it isn't that Ed knows a lot of people that are
offended by one degree or another by this stuff. A huge slice of America is
and the response isn't anger, it is disgust and in an your face response.
As Ed pointed out, Gunner posted his missive for a reason. These sorts of
things are all he's got left.
His attitudes and behavior have landed him, with all of America's other
white trash, right where he is today and it's where he deserves to be.
--
John R. Carroll
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
If she grows up to be sensible, then she'll realize as all sensible
people do that being compared to a monkey in terms of ancestry isn't
any kind of compliment. If she reads the joke in question she'll
recognize its racist element, won't need anyone to explain why it's
offensive, and will cringe if she learns that grandpa stooped to using
her childhood musings to defend his own refusal to admit a simple
truth. You'll never convince Dan and Don of any of that though because
neither is as smart as they think they are, or as smart as you
(inexplicably IMO) give them credit for.
BTW, I believe that gummer's motivation in posting such crap is
primarily to gain imagined adulation. He doesn't care if comes from
the least discriminating readers, or about the depths he must sink to
earn it. In that regard he's a lot like the GOP "purity" nutters, who
like him are destined to go down in flames.
Wayne
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:f2009bf4-c37e-4cad...@r1g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Then why did you say, in an earlier post, "Actually I think Gunner posted it
because it upsets a lot of the far left and their reaction is amusing.
Gunner seems to like posting things that annoy those on the far left," and
"Only those that see a racist intent are going to comment."
Then why would it be "upsetting" unless it was intended to imply racism? You
acknowledge that at least some people are going to see the racist intent,
and that Gunner is aiming to upset those people. In other words, he knew
perfectly well that it's a racist joke, and that people on the left -- those
who react most strongly to intentional racism -- are the ones he was trying
to antagonize.
This is what I mean when I say you're talking out of two sides of your
mouth. On one hand, you recognize that it was intentionally racist -- that's
the basis of the antagonism -- and on the other, you say that it's not
really racist. How can it be intended to provoke a reaction from
anti-racists and not be racist?
It doesn't work, Dan.
--
Ed Huntress
Jim Wilkins
offensive and demeaning?
Ed Huntress
"Jim Wilkins" <kb1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bbbe7311-801d-4960...@x16g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
> Would one of you please explain why "Caribou Barbie" etc wasn't
> offensive and demeaning?
It's like Buffalo Bill. She shoots and eats them. Nobody is saying she's
descended from them. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Don Foreman
Good evening, Wayne! I'd wondered why you hadn't joined the fray.
Both of Bella's parents are highly intelligent, her brown Papa a
member of Mensa and gentleman that we think the world of, both with
exceptional sense of humor. Wee Bella thus far seems to be an acorn
not fallen far from the tree. She is certainly a motormouth like her
very fair-skinned blonde gorgeous blue-eyed mom. Having leprechaun
Mary for a Nana only encourages her. I rather expect that she'll
eventually be presented with both creationist and evolutionist
theories and be allowed to choose for herself. The evolutionist view
suggests that we're all descended from monkeys. I think that Bella
would and will regard being compared to a monkey as amusing e.g.
Curious George.
Skin color is about irrelevant in London. It simply doesn't matter. I
also have a daughter living in Hamtramck MI (a community surrounded
by Detroit) with grandkids who live in a very culturally-diverse
'hood. Katja, not yet 5, is child-fluent in five languages. That's how
it works with wee children in a diverse 'hood Another daughter
lives in Brooklyn, NY. Williamsburg. Not black, strongly Hassidic
Jewish. Peaceful 'hood.
Wayne, you don't know jack shit about tolerance and diversity any more
than pilgrim proper superior Ed. Your choice to live far off-grid
makes that quite clear. You choose to live isolated from others while
presuming to judge those who live peaceably, gently and enjoyably
among diverse others.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
> The evolutionist view
>suggests that we're all descended from monkeys.
No, it does not, nitwit.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html
> I think that Bella
>would and will regard being compared to a monkey as amusing e.g.
>Curious George.
>
>Skin color is about irrelevant in London. It simply doesn't matter. I
>also have a daughter living in Hamtramck MI (a community surrounded
>by Detroit) with grandkids who live in a very culturally-diverse
>'hood. Katja, not yet 5, is child-fluent in five languages. That's how
>it works with wee children in a diverse 'hood Another daughter
>lives in Brooklyn, NY. Williamsburg. Not black, strongly Hassidic
>Jewish. Peaceful 'hood.
So what? Your original train of thought headed in the wrong direction.
Speeding it up will only take you farther and faster from the
destination.
>Wayne, you don't know jack shit about tolerance and diversity any more
>than pilgrim proper superior Ed.
I know to put myself in the place of the butt of the joke, and then
ask myself how I'd view it. As opposed to judging based on faulty
logic, erroneous assumptions, and irrelevant anecdotes. Let's call my
method the golden rule of joke evaluation, and yours the
it's-OK-if-I-say-it-is declaration.
BTW, in this discussion I view Ed as a 6th grade teacher with nearly
unlimited patience. By now though I expect he's willing to hold you
back for another year.
> Your choice to live far off-grid
>makes that quite clear. You choose to live isolated from others while
>presuming to judge those who live peaceably,
Ah yes, you imagine that yet another of your failures to reason can be
explained by something you imagine I do.
>gently and enjoyably among diverse others.
Says the guy who needs a carry-permit to go on his "enjoyable" walks.
LOL
Wayne
Bruce L. Bergman
I'm not ready to throw in with the "Birthers" and by association
belief in the Black Helicopter Squads and the Trilateral Commission...
But this thing simply won't go away, and Obama's camp isn't trying
very hard to prove the point - which makes me suspicious that there
just might be some flames underneath that smoke screen...
The only "One Of Us" that Barack H. Obama may or may not be is a
natural born citizen of the US, and therefore constitutionally
ineligible to hold the office of POTUS. Nothing more, nothing less.
And considering he was in Chicago for quite a while, associating
with fine upstanding citizens <ptui!> like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayres
of the Weather Underground. I wouldn't put ANYTHING past the Chicago
Democratic Machine, including dummying up the records to make sure
their Manchurian Candidate makes it to the top.
if they want to shut the Conspiracy Theory folks up Right Now, just
provide the original hospital "Birth Certificate" - NOT just the state
issued "Ceritficate of Live Birth", that one is far easier to fake.
I want to see the one the hospital provides, the fancy calligraphy
intaglio-printed form with the palm-prints and foot-prints on the back
and all that.
I have my original BC out in the safe, along with a certified copy
of the COLB, and most people tend to take pretty good care of that
little document. Especially when they get this driving ambition in
their head that "Someday, I could be the President of the United
States of America!"
Back it up with copies of the hospital maternity ward log books for
that period, they usually keep a journal that logs the certificates by
number and have the name, the doctors and nurses, and a few other
relevant details. And they usually keep another original copy of the
Real Birth Certificate for the hospital files with the foot-prints and
palm-prints, in case someone gets antsy that their babies were mixed
up... And the prints shuld match. Feel free to redact the other
records on that page, but get out in front of it.
And you want to shut up the doubters, get the charge nurse for the
ward to certify the forms and details of the event as true and
complete, and the doctors and other aides and technicians that were on
the floor. I'll guarantee you they aren't all going to be dead,
mysteriously missing, or suffering dementia to the point where they
can't back up the records. And if they ARE...
It's almost impossible to pull off a conspiracy that stands up to a
cursory examination, you pluck at one of the loose threads and the
whole thing falls apart - but that examination has yet to be done.
--<< Bruce >>--
Don Foreman
>>
>>Skin color is about irrelevant in London. It simply doesn't matter. I
>>also have a daughter living in Hamtramck MI (a community surrounded
>>by Detroit) with grandkids who live in a very culturally-diverse
>>'hood. Katja, not yet 5, is child-fluent in five languages. That's how
>>it works with wee children in a diverse 'hood Another daughter
>>lives in Brooklyn, NY. Williamsburg. Not black, strongly Hassidic
>>Jewish. Peaceful 'hood.
>
>So what?
Merely evidence that you have no understanding of tolerance and
diversity.
>BTW, in this discussion I view Ed as a 6th grade teacher with nearly
>unlimited patience. By now though I expect he's willing to hold you
>back for another year.
Yes, average 6th grade teacher is about right. Not an inspired
teacher, run of the mill or a bit less. Definitely not a docent.
My 6th grade teacher was Mr. Birlson, a combat vet of WWII. I spent
some time in the back room with Mr. Birlson. I was a problem kid but
I came to respect him after hearing his war stories. He shot sharks
with an M1 carbine from shipboard. I'd read Leon Uris's "Battle Cry"
and Michner's "South Pacific" by then and my Dad was a WWII vet, a
SeaBee combat engineer on Guam. Mr. Birlson and I got things sorted
out OK. I didn't flunk 6th grade. YMMV.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<dfor...@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:47:34 -0700, wmbjk...@citlink.net wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Skin color is about irrelevant in London. It simply doesn't matter. I
>>>also have a daughter living in Hamtramck MI (a community surrounded
>>>by Detroit) with grandkids who live in a very culturally-diverse
>>>'hood. Katja, not yet 5, is child-fluent in five languages. That's how
>>>it works with wee children in a diverse 'hood Another daughter
>>>lives in Brooklyn, NY. Williamsburg. Not black, strongly Hassidic
>>>Jewish. Peaceful 'hood.
>>
>>So what?
>
>Merely evidence that you have no understanding of tolerance and
>diversity.
It's "evidence" of nothing other than your habit of irrelevant
elaboration when you can't think of anything cogent.
>>BTW, in this discussion I view Ed as a 6th grade teacher with nearly
>>unlimited patience. By now though I expect he's willing to hold you
>>back for another year.
>
>Yes, average 6th grade teacher is about right.
Is agreeing with yourself supposed to impress someone?
> Not an inspired
>teacher, run of the mill or a bit less. Definitely not a docent.
Do you imagine that anyone seeking to evaluate a teacher would go to
the detention room and ask the opinion of an adult student who's there
for declaring that evolution theory posits that humans evolved from
monkeys?
>My 6th grade teacher was Mr. Birlson, a combat vet of WWII. I spent
>some time in the back room with Mr. Birlson. I was a problem kid but
>I came to respect him after hearing his war stories. He shot sharks
>with an M1 carbine from shipboard. I'd read Leon Uris's "Battle Cry"
>and Michner's "South Pacific" by then and my Dad was a WWII vet, a
>SeaBee combat engineer on Guam. Mr. Birlson and I got things sorted
>out OK.
LOL What did I just say about elaborating on the irrelevant?
> I didn't flunk 6th grade. YMMV.
Sorry, but due to your habit of BSing and making excuses for BSers,
claims from you require corroboration.
Wayne
dca...@krl.org
> Sorry, but due to your habit of BSing and making excuses for BSers,
> claims from you require corroboration.
>
> Wayne
I corroborate his statement.
Dan
Ed Huntress
"Don Foreman" <dfor...@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote in message
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:47:34 -0700, wmbjk...@citlink.net wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Skin color is about irrelevant in London. It simply doesn't matter. I
>>>also have a daughter living in Hamtramck MI (a community surrounded
>>>by Detroit) with grandkids who live in a very culturally-diverse
>>>'hood. Katja, not yet 5, is child-fluent in five languages. That's how
>>>it works with wee children in a diverse 'hood Another daughter
>>>lives in Brooklyn, NY. Williamsburg. Not black, strongly Hassidic
>>>Jewish. Peaceful 'hood.
>>
>>So what?
>
> Merely evidence that you have no understanding of tolerance and
> diversity.
>
>>BTW, in this discussion I view Ed as a 6th grade teacher with nearly
>>unlimited patience. By now though I expect he's willing to hold you
>>back for another year.
>
> Yes, average 6th grade teacher is about right. Not an inspired
> teacher, run of the mill or a bit less. Definitely not a docent.
<sigh> There goes my second career. d8-)
>
> My 6th grade teacher was Mr. Birlson, a combat vet of WWII. I spent
> some time in the back room with Mr. Birlson. I was a problem kid but
> I came to respect him after hearing his war stories. He shot sharks
> with an M1 carbine from shipboard.
My 6th grade teacher was Sister Mary. She could hang upside-down from the
flag pole, which made her look just like a bat.
--
Ed Huntress
wmbjk...@citlink.net
Well, that's a good start I suppose. Now all you need to do is get
gummer, buerste, hhc, patriot games, steveb, strabo and editor to sign
on as well. Then throw in a certified copy of don's 6th grade report
card and bob's your uncle.
Wayne
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>"Don Foreman" <dfor...@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote in message
>news:pi3hi5pc1gnnrbt1p...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:47:34 -0700, wmbjk...@citlink.net wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>Skin color is about irrelevant in London. It simply doesn't matter. I
>>>>also have a daughter living in Hamtramck MI (a community surrounded
>>>>by Detroit) with grandkids who live in a very culturally-diverse
>>>>'hood. Katja, not yet 5, is child-fluent in five languages. That's how
>>>>it works with wee children in a diverse 'hood Another daughter
>>>>lives in Brooklyn, NY. Williamsburg. Not black, strongly Hassidic
>>>>Jewish. Peaceful 'hood.
>>>
>>>So what?
>>
>> Merely evidence that you have no understanding of tolerance and
>> diversity.
>>
>>>BTW, in this discussion I view Ed as a 6th grade teacher with nearly
>>>unlimited patience. By now though I expect he's willing to hold you
>>>back for another year.
>>
>> Yes, average 6th grade teacher is about right. Not an inspired
>> teacher, run of the mill or a bit less. Definitely not a docent.
>
><sigh> There goes my second career. d8-)
Don't sweat it. If you ever need a second career there's sure to be
something available that's more rewarding and better paying than
teaching the thick of skull. Such as, well, pretty much anything.
>> My 6th grade teacher was Mr. Birlson, a combat vet of WWII. I spent
>> some time in the back room with Mr. Birlson. I was a problem kid but
>> I came to respect him after hearing his war stories. He shot sharks
>> with an M1 carbine from shipboard.
>
>My 6th grade teacher was Sister Mary. She could hang upside-down from the
>flag pole, which made her look just like a bat.
Whoa, way cool. But, no stories about the bat imitation being
inspirational on account of your just having read a Bram Stoker novel?
And what about the 2 foot centipedes? Surely Sister Mary shared some
tales about shooting the heads off those from a bucking alter? :-)
Wayne
Ed Huntress
<wmbjk...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:7caii55hbjduupo5g...@4ax.com...
Nah, I was just trying to match Don inanity-for-inanity. When you list
shark-shooting as one of your teacher's defining behaviors, it's hard to
keep up. d8-)
(Do you suppose that bats consider nuns' habits to be a racist insult?)
--
Ed Huntress
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
Dang, that's a hard one. If only the 3 year old, or the 5 year old
who's fluent in 5 languages, had Usenet accounts so we could ask them.
But only after I pay them each a quarter to test grandpa's disc drive
with a jam sandwich. :-)
BTW, check out this incontrovertible poll
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/poll_100_of_grandsons
which backs up some of Don's claims.
Wayne