niggers and queers
boots
called me a bigot before even reading the post?
The post title is "niggers and queers" but that isn't the subject at
all, it's only what it seems likely to take to draw the intended
audience into reading this post.
What this post is about is political correctness.
Political correctness is a new religion of sorts. What it amounts to
is a method of thoughtless sensitivity. And what that really amounts
to is a disgusting insensitivity.
The politically correct never step a toe over the line that separates
their beloved egalitarianism from the evil empire of bigotry, by rote.
Their catechism states that using certain words is bad, words like
'nigger', 'queer', 'chink', 'wetback', and so forth. When the
politically correct hear those words they do as they have been
programmed to do, they attack the speaker as a nasty bigot or shun the
speaker or find some other means of ostracizing the scum-sucking
maggot into line, and they do it in the name of egalitarianism, to
make the world a better place.
The politically correct have been taught how to think by rote, they
have been programmed not to need to think. All they need to do is
follow their catechism.
They know that if you use the word 'nigger' that means you can't see
through a person's skin coloring. They know that if you use the word
'queer' you can't see past the person's private activities. They
don't think for a minute that categorizing people because they use a
forbidden word is diametrically opposed to the concept of
egalitarianism, that concept is apparently too subtle for their
thorougly indoctrinated brains.
They know that some kinds of food are good and some kinds are bad,
that people who are eating bad foods are destroying their bodies and
that's evil. They know that carcinogens cause cancer (nevermind those
pesky genetic inclinations) and that twentieth-hand cigarette smoke
will kill them instantly if they even read about it, nevermind inhale
the stuff.
They know that fat people are fat because they eat bad foods and have
no self-restraint so they avoid fat people or ostracize them or shun
them or preach at them. They know that smokers lack the strength to
quit an obviously nasty evil habit so they avoid them or ostracize
them or shun them or preach at them or ban them from the workplace.
And they think all these things that are politically correct are done
in the name of egalitarianism.
I believe they don't think at all. They don't need to. They have
their catechism and all they have to do is follow it. Unthinkingly,
by rote, they think they can be sensitive to the needs of others. The
catechism tells them how to discern good people from scum-sucking
maggots, why it says right there in the catechism that a fat smoker is
worse than a queer nigger.
If you actually believe that every human spirit deserves respect, that
individuals have a right to make whatever they choose from the cards
they were dealt, if you actually believe in egalitarianism, you're
going to need to think beyond the catechism, perhaps even reject the
catechism entirely and think without it.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
You don't listen to much Black rap music do you.
If you did, you would know that your argument is moot and only
pertains to the portion of the population that is trying to score
political points.
boots
I don't listen to any more black, white, or green rapp than I can
possibly avoid since I prefer music.
>If you did, you would know that your argument is moot and only
>pertains to the portion of the population that is trying to score
>political points.
How can it be moot yet pertain to anyone at all? I'd think it
pertains to those who exemplify the "politically correct" attitude.
Feel free to clue me in, John.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
Where to begin........
Get off the mountain and live deep among people.
Until you do that there's no point really.
boots
>"Feel free to clue me in, John."
>
>Where to begin........
>
>Get off the mountain and live deep among people.
>
>Until you do that there's no point really.
Did that for over 50 years. Apparently I was not "deep among people".
Fooled me.
I still see plenty of evidence that political correctness is a way of
life for some. Heather's "chinky" post is one example.
Mea culpa, I'm impatient with hypocritical stupidity that masquerades
as egalitarianism. Among other things.
Mark
An interesting and well written contribution.
Any terminology, descriptive of a sub-group,
evolves naturally. Through observations of what
characterizes a group, we draw our conclusions.
The litmus test is anecdotal and empirical and
inescapable. You are what you do, and you will
be defined by your culture and appearance. This
is street smart, and for all *practical* purposes,
is reality.
The aspect of psychology is not scale specific.
Just as an individual can suffer from an inferiority
complex, so can an entire sub-group. In this
regard, we see disenfranchised minorities, even
countries, that are aromalous to the population at
large, seeking validation on a profound level. Without
an inner balance of self-identity, a psychosis occurs
that leads to illogical behaviour. Thus we have...
"political correctness run amuck"
What is political correctness run amuck. I shall
tell you.
It is reverse evolution, a misguided wave of
influence that seeks to uplift all that is inferior and
to fall sleepily into the physics of social entropy.
---
Mark 1
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
Well that's the point of politic is it not: to live deeply among
people, not to observe from afar?
How can you ever know people?
The best you can do is live with them, and even then, you may not
really know them.
What we all think and say are two different things.
We're conditioned to do that from the moment we learn to talk. Can you
ever really say what you think without running it through your
internal editor?
We all know there's a price to pay for saying what we think.
The problem arises when we say what we think and it serves to the
detriment of others. If we all lived alone away from each other, then
it wouldn't matter.For those who live deep among people, you have to
pull on your armour every morning and go out in the world. In some
places we decide on conventions of speech, that does not accurately
reflect thought, that tend to reduce the need for full battle dress to
just a flack jacket.
Remember, humans are all about "ME", but can tolerate "WE" and can
live with "US".
THEM, is an entirely different story.
boots
>Remember, humans are all about "ME", but can tolerate "WE" and can
>live with "US".
>THEM, is an entirely different story.
Too many flavors spoil the soup.
serenebabe
> Are you incensed by that subject line? Have you already mentally
> called me a bigot before even reading the post?
<...>
Actually, in my world "queer" is pretty much in the mainstream. Taking
back the language and all that.
--
It's All About We! (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.net/ - new 1/14
"A Woman's Right to Kill Her Baby"
boots
>On 2009-01-14 07:42:36 -0500, boots <n...@no.no> said:
>
>> Are you incensed by that subject line? Have you already mentally
>> called me a bigot before even reading the post?
><...>
>
>Actually, in my world "queer" is pretty much in the mainstream. Taking
>back the language and all that.
Is that the same world where "chinky" is dastardly bigotry? You sound
like a schizoid Walt Disney wannabe, kiddo.
serenebabe
You sound awfully out of touch with the mainstream gay community.
boots
>On 2009-01-14 13:56:21 -0500, boots <n...@no.no> said:
>
>> serenebabe <seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-01-14 07:42:36 -0500, boots <n...@no.no> said:
>>>
>>>> Are you incensed by that subject line? Have you already mentally
>>>> called me a bigot before even reading the post?
>>> <...>
>>>
>>> Actually, in my world "queer" is pretty much in the mainstream. Taking
>>> back the language and all that.
>>
>> Is that the same world where "chinky" is dastardly bigotry? You sound
>> like a schizoid Walt Disney wannabe, kiddo.
>
>You sound awfully out of touch with the mainstream gay community.
Try to throw it back on me, eh? Sorry, I don't think that works.
Tell me about chinky, eh? You're so politically correct you stink
with it.
serenebabe
> serenebabe <seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-01-14 13:56:21 -0500, boots <n...@no.no> said:
>>
>>> serenebabe <seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-01-14 07:42:36 -0500, boots <n...@no.no> said:
>>>>
>>>>> Are you incensed by that subject line? Have you already mentally
>>>>> called me a bigot before even reading the post?
>>>> <...>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, in my world "queer" is pretty much in the mainstream. Taking
>>>> back the language and all that.
>>>
>>> Is that the same world where "chinky" is dastardly bigotry? You sound
>>> like a schizoid Walt Disney wannabe, kiddo.
>>
>> You sound awfully out of touch with the mainstream gay community.
>
> Try to throw it back on me, eh? Sorry, I don't think that works.
> Tell me about chinky, eh? You're so politically correct you stink
> with it.
There's a difference between "politically correct" and having a respect
for the power of language.
PJ
Yes. And there's also a difference between "politically correct," which
is now looked upon with scorn because many people go wayyy overboard
with it, and having respect for people. Using derogatory words to refer
to anyone based on race, sexual orientation, gender, or anything else,
is disrespectful.
It's really as simple as that.
~ ~ ~
PJ
boots
boots
>On 2009-01-14 14:41:45 -0500, boots <n...@no.no> said:
>
>> serenebabe <seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-01-14 13:56:21 -0500, boots <n...@no.no> said:
>>>
>>>> serenebabe <seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2009-01-14 07:42:36 -0500, boots <n...@no.no> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you incensed by that subject line? Have you already mentally
>>>>>> called me a bigot before even reading the post?
>>>>> <...>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, in my world "queer" is pretty much in the mainstream. Taking
>>>>> back the language and all that.
>>>>
>>>> Is that the same world where "chinky" is dastardly bigotry? You sound
>>>> like a schizoid Walt Disney wannabe, kiddo.
>>>
>>> You sound awfully out of touch with the mainstream gay community.
>>
>> Try to throw it back on me, eh? Sorry, I don't think that works.
>> Tell me about chinky, eh? You're so politically correct you stink
>> with it.
>
>There's a difference between "politically correct" and having a respect
>for the power of language.
You should learn something about the power of language. About how it
can incite one to jump to a false conclusion. You didn't get all
knicker-twisted because the proprietor said something powerful, but
because she uttered a word you have been programmed to react to.
Mark
> You sound awfully out of touch with the mainstream gay community.
And you sound "Heterophobic".
"We're straight, we're great, get used to it!"
And furthermore, given the suicide rate of
homosexuals, don't you think you could have
stolen a better word than....gay?
---
Mark 1
PJ
Okay boots, here's the deal. I have no idea whether you're a bigot or
the furthest thing from it, and I'm not in a position to judge you. So I
haven't. But what I will say is that "laconic" is a foreign term to you,
as is "concise" and "write-tight." You blather on and on and on, and
sorry dude, but whatever point you are trying to make is obliterated in
the midst of the blathering.
What exactly is it that you are you trying to say? I realize you think
political correctness is bullshit -- at least that's one thing you've
made abundantly clear. And I agree that in many ways, PC has gotten to
the point of being ridiculous. But beyond that, what is your point? That
you would not hesitate to walk up to a black person on the street and
call him or her a nigger? That you think there's nothing wrong with
calling a Chinese person a chink? That you think there's nothing wrong
with calling someone who is gay a queer or a fag? Because this is how I
see you coming across when you post this kind of stuff. And if people
had no other reason to judge you, just the fact that you would use such
derogatory words in a subject line might just make up their minds for
them. Like it or not.
If I'm wrong, I'm sure you won't hesitate to let me know. But keep it to
a paragraph, please.
~ ~ ~
PJ
serenebabe
What she said.
serenebabe
You don't know me, do you. :-)
Mark
No. I did however go to your websight and do a
little speed read between our posts and see that
your contoversial tag line wasn't representative of
what it sounds like.
But as I zipped through you site, I started getting
that feeling a man gets when he finds himself
standing uncomfortably too close to the ladies
dressing room at the mall. So, I quickly turned
around and walked away. 8?o
Mark
boots
>What exactly is it that you are you trying to say?
Political correctness is a form of bigotry. It replaces thought and
sensitivity with a set of predetermined beliefs received from others,
just as bigotry does. It dehumanizes both the politically correct
person and those upon whom they shed the blessed glory of their
mechanized thought-free consideration.
serenebabe
Thanks for checking it out. :-)
Mark
If I may, you and PJ are *both* right. Boots is appealing to
our higher sense of reasoning that any stifling mentality to
pigeon hole free thinkers is just as criminal as those who
are insensitively crass.
And PJ is right that regardless of what one believes, they
ought to have enough sense to keep the silly mouth shut
in the presence of someone they may offend and or
disrespect.
And I, when i saw the Post title of "Niggers and Queers",
wasn't shocked or offended, because I thought it was
a travel brochure to visit Atlanta. (LOL!)
Now everyone take a deep breath, and go get a snack.
Mark
gekko
<n...@no.no> posted to misc.writing:
> What this post is about is political correctness.
http://blog.dickharper.com/2009/01/12/seakittens/
--
gekko
Money is the root of all evil, and man needs roots
PJ
> PJ wrote
>> serenebabe wrote:
>>> On 2009-01-14 14:41:45 -0500, boots <n...@no.no> said:
>>>> serenebabe <seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2009-01-14 13:56:21 -0500, boots <n...@no.no> said:
>>>>>> serenebabe <seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2009-01-14 07:42:36 -0500, boots <n...@no.no> said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you incensed by that subject line? Have you already mentally called me a bigot before even reading the post?
>>>>>>> <...>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, in my world "queer" is pretty much in the mainstream. Taking back the language and all that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that the same world where "chinky" is dastardly bigotry? You sound like a schizoid Walt Disney wannabe, kiddo.
>>>>>
>>>>> You sound awfully out of touch with the mainstream gay community.
>>>>
>>>> Try to throw it back on me, eh? Sorry, I don't think that works.
>>>> Tell me about chinky, eh? You're so politically correct you stink
>>>> with it.
>>>
>>> There's a difference between "politically correct" and having a
>>> respect for the power of language.
>>
>> Yes. And there's also a difference between "politically correct,"
>> which is now looked upon with scorn because many people go wayyy
>> overboard with it, and having respect for people. Using derogatory
>> words to refer to anyone based on race, sexual orientation, gender, or
>> anything else, is disrespectful.
>>
>> It's really as simple as that.
>
> What she said.
Thank you, Heather. We don't agree on everything, but I was pretty sure
we would be of like minds on this particular point.
~ ~ ~
PJ
PJ
I think I'm in love.
Oh shut up, just deal with it.
~ ~ ~
PJ
PJ
> PJ <autho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What exactly is it that you are you trying to say?
>
> Political correctness is a form of bigotry. It replaces thought and
> sensitivity with a set of predetermined beliefs received from others,
> just as bigotry does. It dehumanizes both the politically correct
> person and those upon whom they shed the blessed glory of their
> mechanized thought-free consideration.
Okay, bootsie babe, you did a paragraph, which was so cool!! Hooray! I
commend you. But you [inadvertently?] neglected to answer my questions
about things like, after all your big, bad, bad-ass talk, would you be
willing to walk up to a person and lash him or her with ugly monikers
such as "nigger" or "chink" or "fag." So my question to you stands ...
are you willing to do that, Mr. Anti-Politically Correct?
Care to have another go at it?
~ ~ ~
PJ
$Zero
> boots wrote:
with words as with anything else, the thing that matters most is
intent and effect.
if someone intends to injure, it doesn't matter which words they use
to do so.
if someone does NOT intend to injure, the same thing applies.
> Care to have another go at it?
are you making a sexual proposition to boots?
...
see?
context is everything.
...
-$Zero...
"Friend has a pickup
Drives his kid to school
Then he takes his wife
To beauty school
Now she's doin' nails
Gonna get a job
Got a good teacher"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/40958f836e7a1565
Because there's only so much time in a minute!
http://itsazenthinger.com
Jackson Pillock
> Are you incensed by that subject line? Have you already mentally
> called me a bigot before even reading the post?
Not at all. I already know you.
>
> The post title is "niggers and queers" but that isn't the subject at
> all, it's only what it seems likely to take to draw the intended
> audience into reading this post.
>
> What this post is about is political correctness.
Ah. That.
>
> Political correctness is a new religion of sorts. What it amounts to
> is a method of thoughtless sensitivity. And what that really amounts
> to is a disgusting insensitivity.
>
> The politically correct never step a toe over the line that separates
> their beloved egalitarianism from the evil empire of bigotry, by rote.
>
> Their catechism states that using certain words is bad, words like
> 'nigger', 'queer', 'chink', 'wetback', and so forth. When the
> politically correct hear those words they do as they have been
> programmed to do, they attack the speaker as a nasty bigot or shun the
> speaker or find some other means of ostracizing the scum-sucking
> maggot into line, and they do it in the name of egalitarianism, to
> make the world a better place.
Is this where I point out that you're a blithering idiot?
Skipper
<527087d9-a9dc-4b7a...@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Jackson Pillock <and...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Is this where I point out that you're a blithering idiot?
Wow, "Jackson" used the word "blithering"...
Just Me
> In article
> <527087d9-a9dc-4b7a-9d02-b9fe38807...@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Is this where I point out that you're a blithering idiot?
>
> Wow, "Jackson" used the word "blithering"...
Were "idiocy" all this is, it would be a perfectly blameless and
exemplary example of the thing.
But insofar as there are plenty of idiots, morons and imbeciles who
would know better than to post such a subject header as that in polite
company, stupidity cannot stand for the qualification he would require
for it.
Even the dumbest, drooling half-wit on earth does not have to take the
first thought in his or her head to KNOW, to feel in his or her bones,
that there is nothing "politically correct" about it, when tears come
out of a little African-American kid's eyes, after some dirt like that
got in there. She surfs in here, looking for a place to share her joy
over who was elected for the next President of the United States--and
what does she see?
Lynch ropes and blood. And bodies buried in the Mississippi mud. And
MIGOD! Will the day never dawn on the earth for this little girl, that
the sun of change should shine all day, that she should for just once
in her whole life, be able to get up in the morning and go to bed that
night, without having felt that hurt?
Just how "politically correct" is it, to hope that for her?
---
JM
John Ashby
"$Zero" <zero...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c8dfa622-490e-423b...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>On Jan 14, 7:08 pm, PJ <authores...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> boots wrote:
>> > PJ <authores...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> What exactly is it that you are you trying to say?
>>
>> > Political correctness is a form of bigotry. It replaces thought and
>> > sensitivity with a set of predetermined beliefs received from others,
>> > just as bigotry does. It dehumanizes both the politically correct
>> > person and those upon whom they shed the blessed glory of their
>> > mechanized thought-free consideration.
>
>> Okay, bootsie babe, you did a paragraph, which was so cool!! Hooray! I
>> commend you. But you [inadvertently?] neglected to answer my questions
>> about things like, after all your big, bad, bad-ass talk, would you be
>> willing to walk up to a person and lash him or her with ugly monikers
>> such as "nigger" or "chink" or "fag." So my question to you stands ...
>> are you willing to do that, Mr. Anti-Politically Correct?
>with words as with anything else, the thing that matters most is
>intent and effect.
>if someone intends to injure, it doesn't matter which words they use
>to do so.
>if someone does NOT intend to injure, the same thing applies.
That covers intent, but you also mentioned effect. If one does not intend
ones words to injure but the recipient is offended, then you bear some
responsibility for the offence. It's fashionable among some to put all the
responsibility for offence on the offended party, but that seems to be a way
to avoid facing up to ones own. I can go along with that to an extent, but
this is a case where ignorance may be a partial defence, but once the
potential for offence is known it increases the culpability if the use of
the words continues.
If I call you a wop, I may intend it jocularly or I may genuinely not know
the history of the word. But if you are offended, and you tell me so, the
next time I use the word it can only be assumed that I do intend to offend,
even if I use it to some other American of Italian descent.
The gap between boots and PJ/Heather is in whether one is entitled to take
offence of behalf of another. PC, in so far as it exists outside of right
wing scare stories, is about trying to engender a society of respect for all
by making the use of disrespectful words for sections of society
unacceptable. The end is one I would like to think we can all agree on, the
means are arguable.
john
Just Me
> The end is one I would like to think we can all agree on, the
> means are arguable.
FUCK "arguable". Why do you perpetratre the insult by perpetuating
the thread under THAT title? Why don't you get a heart instead of
merely talking AS THOUGH you had one?
God damned ofay jerkwater hicks.
--
JM http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
http://whosenose.blogspot.com
http://doo-dads.blogspot.com
http://jesusexegesis.blogspot.com
http://mackiemesser.zoomshare.com
boots
>boots wrote:
>> PJ <autho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What exactly is it that you are you trying to say?
>>
>> Political correctness is a form of bigotry. It replaces thought and
>> sensitivity with a set of predetermined beliefs received from others,
>> just as bigotry does. It dehumanizes both the politically correct
>> person and those upon whom they shed the blessed glory of their
>> mechanized thought-free consideration.
>
>Okay, bootsie babe, you did a paragraph, which was so cool!! Hooray! I
>commend you. But you [inadvertently?] neglected to answer my questions
Oh. Sorry. I answered them. But then I had to cut them out. You
asked for no more than a paragraph.
>about things like, after all your big, bad, bad-ass talk,
I'm not sure what "big, bad, bad-ass talk" you are referring to. I am
a writer. Writers write. They use words. They practice this and
that. Other writers might perhaps understand that. Maybe it's more
difficult for a straight non-fiction writer to understand that the
modes of expression a writer chooses to use in an online writer's bar
are not necessarily indicative of how one would express oneself in a
real-life grocery store full of strangers. Stephen King is not all
the characters in all his books innit.
> would you be
>willing to walk up to a person and lash him or her with ugly monikers
>such as "nigger" or "chink" or "fag."
I would walk up to a person I knew very well and use any and all of
those words as a lash if I felt that was the only way to communicate
something important and beneficial to that person, something that
might prevent the person from harming himself or maybe someone else.
I expect that the same is true for you. When a friend won't listen
you yell as loud as you need to. Saying "hey asshole wake up!" to a
friend is in no way disrespectful.
If I came upon a rape scene or something I might possibly use those
words as a lash to distract the attacker for long enough to let the
victim (and me) run away, but I am not a fast runner anymore so maybe
I'd just dial 911 instead, I really have no idea and would prefer not
to find out.
Walking up to some innocent stranger unprovoked and using those loaded
words for the purpose of causing harm? That's nuts PJ. There's no
reason for it that I can imagine. I'd no more do that than walk up to
a stranger and punch them in the gut.
What I write here is written because I am a writer. If I write it
badly I consider it an act of friendship for someone to point that
out. If my point does not come across I consider it an act of
friendship for someone to point that out.
Although what I write here is usually based on real-life attitudes
etc, my mode of expression in real life is not the same as it is here
among other writers. Yes, in real life I will certainly think "Lady,
your need to have your fucking neck wrung for leaving your dog in the
car to bark at anything that moves", but that does not mean I say a
word about it. If I did not have things to do I would be miles from
her and her dog and there is nothing for me to gain by fixing her
neck.
boots
>The gap between boots and PJ/Heather is in whether one is entitled to take
>offence of behalf of another. PC, in so far as it exists outside of right
>wing scare stories, is about trying to engender a society of respect for all
>by making the use of disrespectful words for sections of society
>unacceptable.
Are you saying that I have no right to be offended on behalf of the
restaurant proprietor that Heather unthinkingly applied her political
correctness programming in a condemnatory way?
Making the use of disrespectful words for sections of society
unacceptable is like burning books, the pages may burn but the
concepts within do not.
It is not the words that offend me, or the idea that some words are
intensely loaded and should be used accordingly, but the idea that a
rulebook named political correctness can validly be used to replace
the effort of realtime thought and insight.
Once you accept rulebooks as a replacement for conscience, the devil
will sneak into the details. Rulebooks are never a replacement for
thought and conscience.
Sensitivity pretended on the basis of a fixed set of rules is
insensitivity.
Taking pride in that kind of pretended sensitivity is disgusting.
boots
>It was the best of times; it was the worst of times, when boots
><n...@no.no> posted to misc.writing:
>
>
>> What this post is about is political correctness.
>
>http://blog.dickharper.com/2009/01/12/seakittens/
If you weren't such a habitual buttcrack I might've clicked that link.
boots
>On 14 Jan, 12:42, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> Are you incensed by that subject line? Have you already mentally
>> called me a bigot before even reading the post?
>
>
>Not at all. I already know you.
It may please you to think that. You know that I have not betrayed
your confidence. Beyond that, how much are you certain you know?
>> The post title is "niggers and queers" but that isn't the subject at
>> all, it's only what it seems likely to take to draw the intended
>> audience into reading this post.
>>
>> What this post is about is political correctness.
>
>Ah. That.
>
>
>>
>> Political correctness is a new religion of sorts. What it amounts to
>> is a method of thoughtless sensitivity. And what that really amounts
>> to is a disgusting insensitivity.
>>
>> The politically correct never step a toe over the line that separates
>> their beloved egalitarianism from the evil empire of bigotry, by rote.
>>
>> Their catechism states that using certain words is bad, words like
>> 'nigger', 'queer', 'chink', 'wetback', and so forth. When the
>> politically correct hear those words they do as they have been
>> programmed to do, they attack the speaker as a nasty bigot or shun the
>> speaker or find some other means of ostracizing the scum-sucking
>> maggot into line, and they do it in the name of egalitarianism, to
>> make the world a better place.
>
>Is this where I point out that you're a blithering idiot?
Please Jackson, do remember times in the past when you have been shown
the fool, and do not abuse yourself without cause.
Just Me
What I said.
serenebabe
<...>
> this is a case where ignorance may be a partial defence, but once the
> potential for offence is known it increases the culpability if the use of
> the words continues.
>
> If I call you a wop, I may intend it jocularly or I may genuinely not know
> the history of the word. But if you are offended, and you tell me so, the
> next time I use the word it can only be assumed that I do intend to offend,
> even if I use it to some other American of Italian descent.
This is another reason we're leaning towards going back. I'd say we
plan on going back, but I haven't had a chance to have a decent
conversation with Josh about it. Assuming we do go back, I'll say
something to her. I'll assume she just doesn't realize how it sounded
to us, what it meant to us. I can be very direct but nice all the same.
We'll see how it goes.
serenebabe
<...>
> Making the use of disrespectful words for sections of society
> unacceptable is like burning books, the pages may burn but the
> concepts within do not.
I definitely see what you mean, boots. Cringing at words just because
we think we're supposed to not like them is another form of ignorance.
Frankly, I'd rather err on that side. But, I see your point. It's a bit
like how we handle Maya's use of "bad words." We teach her there are no
bad words, but people's feelings might be hurt by words and/or there
are words that when we hear them we don't like how it feels. Very, very
simple. She can say anything she wants (helps reduce the "I'll say this
to shock you" experimenting, too). My least favorite thing coming out
of her mouth is the word "hate." I don't always comment (that would
give the shock factor), but pretty often I'll tell her that when I hear
that word it kind of hurts me inside and is there another word she
could use to describe how she feels about xyz.
> It is not the words that offend me, or the idea that some words are
> intensely loaded and should be used accordingly, but the idea that a
> rulebook named political correctness can validly be used to replace
> the effort of realtime thought and insight.
I'm not so sure this is really a threat, though. I think it's a bit
like getting all worried about something like "reverse racism."
Mindlessness, all the time, is something we ought to avoid. But if
someone's going to be mindless, this seems mostly harmless, no?
<...>
> Taking pride in that kind of pretended sensitivity is disgusting.
What makes me cringe is people who are *so* into speaking carefully
that it really seems like they're covering up some inside guilt about
their real thoughts. Of course there's no way I can know their real
thoughts. But, I think you know what I mean. It's like the families I
know who "live simply" and try not to participate in Big Box spending,
etc. but send their children to the crunchy expensive private school.
serenebabe
> etc, my mode of expression in real life is not the same as it is here
> among other writers. Yes, in real life I will certainly think "Lady,
> your need to have your fucking neck wrung for leaving your dog in the
> car to bark at anything that moves", but that does not mean I say a
> word about it. If I did not have things to do I would be miles from
> her and her dog and there is nothing for me to gain by fixing her
> neck.
Oh! I can not *stand* the word "lady." Gag gag gag. ;-)
boots
>On 2009-01-15 02:17:08 -0500, "John Ashby" <johna...@yahoo.com> said:
><...>
>> this is a case where ignorance may be a partial defence, but once the
>> potential for offence is known it increases the culpability if the use of
>> the words continues.
>>
>> If I call you a wop, I may intend it jocularly or I may genuinely not know
>> the history of the word. But if you are offended, and you tell me so, the
>> next time I use the word it can only be assumed that I do intend to offend,
>> even if I use it to some other American of Italian descent.
><...>
>
>This is another reason we're leaning towards going back. I'd say we
>plan on going back, but I haven't had a chance to have a decent
>conversation with Josh about it. Assuming we do go back, I'll say
>something to her. I'll assume she just doesn't realize how it sounded
>to us, what it meant to us.
So you'll explain to her that people who have turned off their
thinking facilities in favor of subscribing to what is politically
correct will take offense at the use of one of their proscribed words
without bothering to determine her intent in using it?
No Shirt
No Shoes
No Thought
No Food
Bacon is nasty stuff filled with cholesterol and is probably Known To
The State Of California to cause heart attacks. Perhaps there is
another more politically correct restaurant in the area that serves
eggwhite souffles with tofu?
Maybe it's all about we's true (as opposed to professed) values.
The guy who said "Know Thyself" wasn't just whistlin' dixie.
boots
>On 2009-01-15 05:00:53 -0500, boots <n...@no.no> said:
><...>
>> Making the use of disrespectful words for sections of society
>> unacceptable is like burning books, the pages may burn but the
>> concepts within do not.
>
>I definitely see what you mean, boots. Cringing at words just because
>we think we're supposed to not like them is another form of ignorance.
>Frankly, I'd rather err on that side. But, I see your point. It's a bit
>like how we handle Maya's use of "bad words." We teach her there are no
>bad words, but people's feelings might be hurt by words and/or there
>are words that when we hear them we don't like how it feels. Very, very
>simple. She can say anything she wants (helps reduce the "I'll say this
>to shock you" experimenting, too). My least favorite thing coming out
>of her mouth is the word "hate." I don't always comment (that would
>give the shock factor), but pretty often I'll tell her that when I hear
>that word it kind of hurts me inside and is there another word she
>could use to describe how she feels about xyz.
It might be useful to dig a bit when she uses the h-word. Kids aren't
as good as adults at vocalizing their feelings, even adults aren't
good at it. When a kid says "I hate you!" often it means "You've
frustrated me and I don't know how to handle it". Granted it's
unusual for a kid to be that articulate, but the h-word may be an
opportunity for you to teach her whatever you can about handling
frustration. Life's full of it, and ways of handling it effectively
are valuable.
>> It is not the words that offend me, or the idea that some words are
>> intensely loaded and should be used accordingly, but the idea that a
>> rulebook named political correctness can validly be used to replace
>> the effort of realtime thought and insight.
>
>I'm not so sure this is really a threat, though. I think it's a bit
>like getting all worried about something like "reverse racism."
>Mindlessness, all the time, is something we ought to avoid. But if
>someone's going to be mindless, this seems mostly harmless, no?
In my lexicon thoughtless and mindless are not the same;
thoughtlessness is a form of ignorance and mindlessness is an aspect
of mysticism.
><...>
>> Taking pride in that kind of pretended sensitivity is disgusting.
>
>What makes me cringe is people who are *so* into speaking carefully
>that it really seems like they're covering up some inside guilt about
>their real thoughts.
Pick up a rock.
> Of course there's no way I can know their real
>thoughts. But, I think you know what I mean. It's like the families I
>know who "live simply" and try not to participate in Big Box spending,
>etc. but send their children to the crunchy expensive private school.
I don't know any families like that.
boots
>On 2009-01-15 04:47:46 -0500, boots <n...@no.no> said:
><...>
>> Although what I write here is usually based on real-life attitudes
>> etc, my mode of expression in real life is not the same as it is here
>> among other writers. Yes, in real life I will certainly think "Lady,
>> your need to have your fucking neck wrung for leaving your dog in the
>> car to bark at anything that moves", but that does not mean I say a
>> word about it. If I did not have things to do I would be miles from
>> her and her dog and there is nothing for me to gain by fixing her
>> neck.
>
>Oh! I can not *stand* the word "lady." Gag gag gag. ;-)
Is "lady" proscribed? I've probably edited my rendering of what I'd
think, changing "You worthless cunt" to "Lady". Damn my hide anyway.
$Zero
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >On Jan 14, 7:08 pm, PJ <authores...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> boots wrote:
> >> > PJ <authores...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> What exactly is it that you are you trying to say?
>
> >> > Political correctness is a form of bigotry. It replaces thought and
> >> > sensitivity with a set of predetermined beliefs received from others,
> >> > just as bigotry does. It dehumanizes both the politically correct
> >> > person and those upon whom they shed the blessed glory of their
> >> > mechanized thought-free consideration.
>
> >> Okay, bootsie babe, you did a paragraph, which was so cool!! Hooray! I
> >> commend you. But you [inadvertently?] neglected to answer my questions
> >> about things like, after all your big, bad, bad-ass talk, would you be
> >> willing to walk up to a person and lash him or her with ugly monikers
> >> such as "nigger" or "chink" or "fag." So my question to you stands ...
> >> are you willing to do that, Mr. Anti-Politically Correct?
> >
> >with words as with anything else, the thing that matters most is
> >intent and effect.
> >
> >if someone intends to injure, it doesn't matter which words they use
> >to do so.
> >
> >if someone does NOT intend to injure, the same thing applies.
>
> That covers intent, but you also mentioned effect.
which i included for effect.
> If one does not intend ones words to injure but the recipient is offended,
> then you bear some responsibility for the offence.
by that logic, your responding to this post without changing the
subject line makes you responsible for offending people who are
offended by the words in the subject line?
actually, i concede that such a thing could actually apply in some
cases, depending on the possible effect of the words in the subject
line, but not with the words there now.
for instance, if the words were an actual credible threat of some
sort, directed at some specific person or group.
but in this case, they're just words.
> It's fashionable among some to put all the responsibility for offence
> on the offended party, but that seems to be a way to avoid facing up
> to ones own.
sometimes, maybe.
> I can go along with that to an extent, but this is a case where ignorance
> may be a partial defence, but once the potential for offence is known it
> increases the culpability if the use of the words continues.
so if someone explains to you why and how they are offended by the
word nincompoop, and you continue to use it, you become culpable for
offending them?
do you see the slippery slope there?
...
anyway, all i have to do is contemplate a foreign language and i just
have to laugh at the whole idea of "unacceptable words" in a language.
> If I call you a wop, I may intend it jocularly or I may genuinely not know
> the history of the word.
i'm an Italian American and i'm not at all offended by the words wop,
or ginney, or dago, or any other such words.
i've heard them used all of my life but nobody ever told me to be
offended by those words.
am i seriously remiss in that regard?
should i spend some time learning the history of those words?
will that help me become offended by them?
> But if you are offended, and you tell me so, the
> next time I use the word it can only be assumed that I do intend to offend,
to me, that's very bizarre thinkins.
> even if I use it to some other American of Italian descent.
wow.
now THAT is even far more bizarre than your previous thought.
> The gap between boots and PJ/Heather is in whether one is entitled to take
> offence of behalf of another. PC, in so far as it exists outside of right
> wing scare stories, is about trying to engender a society of respect for all
> by making the use of disrespectful words for sections of society
> unacceptable.
i'd argue that such an endeavor is a totally wasted set of priorities
and energy.
in my way of thinkins, it would be far more useful (and attainable) to
educate those who are offended by "disrespectful words" as to why
making certain words unacceptable to use is a bad thing and why they
shouldn't be affected by the usage of any specific words, in and of
themselves.
AND to educate those who use words to injure people why doing so is
usually counterproductive, regardless of which specific words they
use.
...
for instance, i'd much rather see the young black girl (that jervis is
trolling about being reduced to tears or somesuch) be totally
indifferent to the word nigger when stumbling upon such a discussion.
just like i am totally indifferent to the words wop, ginney, dago,
etc.
for some reason, others would rather she be devestated.
that's what encouraging the PC thinger enables.
> The end is one I would like to think we can all agree on,
engendering a society of respect for ALL is not something that even
you agree with, is it?
i mean, are there no categories of people for whom you have diminished
respect for?
are there no sexual behaviors for which you have no respect for?
now granted, regardless of word usage, disrespecting someone for their
race or ethnicity (harmless joking aside) is something i think that
ALL sensible people can agree is highly undesirable, with very few
possible exceptions.
ethnic terrorists, for instance, who group themselves together under a
race-based word, like certain "brotherhoods" -- i mean, do you think
we should respect those groups whose founding principle is
disrespecting others for non-sensible reasons?
...
but is it really desirable to engender a society where all sexual
behaviors are acceptable and respected?
surely you don't respect rapists, do you?
so, is "rapist" a "disrespectful word" which ought not be used in
polite society?
...
where exactly has my logic strayed?
> the means are arguable.
that i completely agree with.
for instance, consider this.
the widespread suppression of the word nigger could possibly have
turned out to have been a bad thing for the following reason.
racists don't use that word in public anymore.
so instead, their ridiculousness festers hidden.
when needed, they use codeword "euphemisms", instead, which have been
thoroughly washed of their obvious "sting".
though, on the posivite side, i suppose it delights some blacks (and
some non-racists whites alike, myself included) quite a bit that we
are able to freely use the nigger word without the slightest chance of
being considered racist, exspecially knowing that such glorious
freedom seriously pisses off the racists who've been totally
squelched, free speech-wise.
but see, i think it would probably be better if the racists were still
using the word openly, so that they would be easier to identify, and
therefore, easier to scold and enlighten.
or do you actually think that being forced into silence is a better
way to deal with them?
maybe.
it's arguable.
personally though, i think it's delusional (at best) and it just
_encourages_ racism, by effectively hiding it away.
plus, it gives racists a rallying "victimhood" to embrace.
-$Zero...
grandma living in the white house
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/b993188d15b55a8a
John Ashby
"boots" <n...@no.no> wrote in message
news:5l1um4t9km04an64n...@4ax.com...
> "John Ashby" <johna...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>The gap between boots and PJ/Heather is in whether one is entitled to take
>>offence of behalf of another. PC, in so far as it exists outside of right
>>wing scare stories, is about trying to engender a society of respect for
>>all
>>by making the use of disrespectful words for sections of society
>>unacceptable.
>
> Are you saying that I have no right to be offended on behalf of the
> restaurant proprietor that Heather unthinkingly applied her political
> correctness programming in a condemnatory way?
>
No, I'm saying that the Politically Correct portion of Heather's response
was she was offended on behalf of the Chinese people referred to in a
derogatory fashion while not being (AFAIK) herself Chinese.
> Making the use of disrespectful words for sections of society
> unacceptable is like burning books, the pages may burn but the
> concepts within do not.
I'm sure you think that, but it is, as I said, arguable.
> It is not the words that offend me, or the idea that some words are
> intensely loaded and should be used accordingly, but the idea that a
> rulebook named political correctness can validly be used to replace
> the effort of realtime thought and insight.
Does that idea offend you more or less than the bigotry behind the
deliberately offensive use of terms such as those in the subject of this
thread?
> Once you accept rulebooks as a replacement for conscience, the devil
> will sneak into the details. Rulebooks are never a replacement for
> thought and conscience.
There we are (for once) in complete agreement. There are two things that
need to be said at this point. Most of the stories of such unthinking
application of the alleged rulebook turn out on closer examination to be
grossly exaggerated. Those that do not are generally due to (as you say) an
unthinking application of what people believe to be the rules, thanks to all
the publicity given to the exaggerated stories. Thus the myth of PC,
generated by the Right to beat the Left and excuse their own bigotry,
perpetuates itself.
john
John Ashby
I considered changing the subject line and had to balance the offense to
blacks and gays against the offense to boots as the original poster and
Usenet etiquette.
> sometimes, maybe.
>
>
>> I can go along with that to an extent, but this is a case where ignorance
>> may be a partial defence, but once the potential for offence is known it
>> increases the culpability if the use of the words continues.
>
>
> so if someone explains to you why and how they are offended by the
> word nincompoop, and you continue to use it, you become culpable for
> offending them?
>
Yes. Focus on behaviour, not on names.
>> If I call you a wop, I may intend it jocularly or I may genuinely not
>> know
>> the history of the word.
>
> i'm an Italian American and i'm not at all offended by the words wop,
> or ginney, or dago, or any other such words.
Yet there are those who are offended, and those who use them intending to
offend.
>> But if you are offended, and you tell me so, the
>> next time I use the word it can only be assumed that I do intend to
>> offend,
>
> to me, that's very bizarre thinkins.
>
>> even if I use it to some other American of Italian descent.
>
> wow.
>
> now THAT is even far more bizarre than your previous thought.
That you find it bizarre is itself bizarre.
>> The gap between boots and PJ/Heather is in whether one is entitled to
>> take
>> offence of behalf of another. PC, in so far as it exists outside of right
>> wing scare stories, is about trying to engender a society of respect for
>> all
>> by making the use of disrespectful words for sections of society
>> unacceptable.
>
> i'd argue that such an endeavor is a totally wasted set of priorities
> and energy.
>
> in my way of thinkins, it would be far more useful (and attainable) to
> educate those who are offended by "disrespectful words" as to why
> making certain words unacceptable to use is a bad thing and why they
> shouldn't be affected by the usage of any specific words, in and of
> themselves.
I don't think you've thought through the converse of your argument. You say
below that the suppression of racist words hides racist behaviour, drives it
underground, but doesn't eliminate it. On the other hand, treating those
words as inocuous, permitting them in casual discourse, legitimates their
use in offensive contexts, and thereby legitimates the offensive thoughts
and behaviours behind them.
> AND to educate those who use words to injure people why doing so is
> usually counterproductive, regardless of which specific words they
> use.
Assuming it is counter-productive.
>> The end is one I would like to think we can all agree on,
>
> engendering a society of respect for ALL is not something that even
> you agree with, is it?
Yes, it is. I may not respect their behaviour, but I can address it in a way
that respects them.
That sounds horribly close to "Love the sinner, hate the sin". Sorry about
that.
> i mean, are there no categories of people for whom you have diminished
> respect for?
No,paople do not come in categories.
> are there no sexual behaviors for which you have no respect for?
Do you see how you've turned from the people themselves to their behaviour?
In which case my response to your terrorist/rapist examples should be
self-evident. In fact I do have experience of dealing with people whose
behaviour might well fit into the categories you are thinking of, and of
expressing my disapproval in a throroughly respectful way, an approach which
has a much higher chance of success than simply slagging them off.
> plus, it gives racists a rallying "victimhood" to embrace.
That is always a difficult one.
john
$Zero
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > On Jan 15, 2:17 am, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
[...] = snippage disclosure
> >> >with words as with anything else, the thing that matters most is
> >> >intent and effect.
>
> >> >if someone intends to injure, it doesn't matter which words they use
> >> >to do so.
>
> >> >if someone does NOT intend to injure, the same thing applies.
>
> >> That covers intent, but you also mentioned effect.
>
> > which i included for effect.
>
> >> If one does not intend ones words to injure but the recipient is
> >> offended, then you bear some responsibility for the offence.
>
> > by that logic, your responding to this post without changing the
> > subject line makes you responsible for offending people who are
> > offended by the words in the subject line?
>
> I considered changing the subject line and had to balance the offense to
> blacks and gays against the offense to boots as the original poster and
> Usenet etiquette.
trivial Usenet etiquette trumped offending blacks and gays?
or was it more a case of realizing that neither blacks or gays would
likely be offended?
and what about the non-trivial Usenet etiquette of disclosing massive
snippage?
> > sometimes, maybe.
>
> >> I can go along with that to an extent, but this is a case where ignorance
> >> may be a partial defence, but once the potential for offence is known it
> >> increases the culpability if the use of the words continues.
>
> > so if someone explains to you why and how they are offended by the
> > word nincompoop, and you continue to use it, you become culpable for
> > offending them?
>
> Yes. Focus on behaviour, not on names.
point mine, i'm pretty sure.
> >> If I call you a wop, I may intend it jocularly or I may genuinely not
> >> know the history of the word.
>
> > i'm an Italian American and i'm not at all offended by the words wop,
> > or ginney, or dago, or any other such words.
>
> Yet there are those who are offended, and those who use them intending to
> offend.
personally, i don't know of any Italians anywhere who are offended by
any of those words.
but thanks for snipping my other questions in that regard,
undisclosed, no less.
makes the discussion a bit more difficult to follow, in context.
hence the Usenet etiquette of indicating snippage, particularly in
longish posts.
> >> But if you are offended, and you tell me so, the
> >> next time I use the word it can only be assumed
> >> that I do intend to offend,
>
> > to me, that's very bizarre thinkins.
>
> >> even if I use it to some other American of Italian descent.
>
> > wow.
>
> > now THAT is even far more bizarre than your previous thought.
>
> That you find it bizarre is itself bizarre.
that you don't find it even more bizarre is quadruply bizarre.
because you're now ironically (and hypocritically) clumping all
Americans of Italian descent into one category group.
> >> The gap between boots and PJ/Heather is in whether one is entitled to
> >> take offence of behalf of another. PC, in so far as it exists outside of
> >> right wing scare stories, is about trying to engender a society of
> >> respect for all by making the use of disrespectful words for sections
> >> of society unacceptable.
>
> > i'd argue that such an endeavor is a totally wasted set of priorities
> > and energy.
>
> > in my way of thinkins, it would be far more useful (and attainable) to
> > educate those who are offended by "disrespectful words" as to why
> > making certain words unacceptable to use is a bad thing and why they
> > shouldn't be affected by the usage of any specific words, in and of
> > themselves.
>
> I don't think you've thought through the converse of your argument.
well, given the facts, there isn't much need to do so.
> You say
> below that the suppression of racist words hides racist behaviour, drives it
> underground, but doesn't eliminate it.
and in fact perpetuates it where it otherwise may have been further
eliminated instead.
> On the other hand, treating those
> words as inocuous, permitting them in casual discourse,
> legitimates their use in offensive contexts,
how so?
words are words are words.
some have many meanings in different contexts.
> and thereby legitimates the offensive thoughts
> and behaviours behind them.
not in the least bit.
> > AND to educate those who use words to injure people why doing so is
> > usually counterproductive, regardless of which specific words they
> > use.
>
> Assuming it is counter-productive.
agreed.
> >> The end is one I would like to think we can all agree on,
>
> > engendering a society of respect for ALL is not something that even
> > you agree with, is it?
>
> Yes, it is. I may not respect their behaviour, but I can address it in a way
> that respects them.
this is where i again wish that you didn't snip my follow-up
questions.
but anyway...
i'm not advocating disrespecting rapists for anything other than their
behavior, am i?
> That sounds horribly close to "Love the sinner, hate the sin".
> Sorry about that.
no offense taken.
> > i mean, are there no categories of people for whom you have diminished
> > respect for?
>
> No,paople do not come in categories.
apparently, Italian Americans do, though, huh?
but i'm obliged to point out that rapists are a category of people.
and i'm also obliged to re-ask the question you snipped, to wit:
is "rapist" a "disrespectful word" which ought not be acceptable to
use in polite society?
> > are there no sexual behaviors for which you have no respect for?
>
> Do you see how you've turned from the people themselves to their behaviour?
sure.
> In which case my response to your terrorist/rapist examples should be
> self-evident.
but it's not, especially in regards to the word usage issue.
> In fact I do have experience of dealing with people whose
> behaviour might well fit into the categories you are thinking of,
> and of expressing my disapproval in a throroughly respectful way,
like?
> an approach which
> has a much higher chance of success than simply slagging them off.
a rose by any other name is still a rose.
> > plus, it gives racists a rallying "victimhood" to embrace.
>
> That is always a difficult one.
i'll have to admit to being whoooooooshed by that response.
should i have been?
or were you just being sarcastic?
-$Zero...
the problem with the truth is...
most people can't handle the truth.
so there's virtually no market for it.
which is precisely how i know that
the new web publication (which i've
been developing for several years)
will be a huge fucking success:
i mean, talk about an enormously large
existing market for a product, huh? whoa.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/4bb5ea232c1ed602
i love that guy. he's a fucking comic genius.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/1cf6b09f6443a383
boots
>> It is not the words that offend me, or the idea that some words are
>> intensely loaded and should be used accordingly, but the idea that a
>> rulebook named political correctness can validly be used to replace
>> the effort of realtime thought and insight.
>
>Does that idea offend you more or less than the bigotry behind the
>deliberately offensive use of terms such as those in the subject of this
>thread?
The key here is "deliberately offensive use" of said terms.
I think that mostly such terms are used ignorantly or thoughtlessly.
When people are being deliberately offensive, I think they've usually
already cornered their victim and have baseball bats ready
(figuratively or literally) and are attempting to bait up an excuse to
beat the victim. And usually those ignorami are simply angry about
their own situation in the world and exhibiting displaced agression.
Who's to blame? There are multiple answers to that question.
To be ignorant can be an innocent state if one doesn't know and has
never been taught. Ignorance can also be a willful state of refusal
to accept.
To willfully cause harm, knowingly and with intent, might be one
possible definition of the word 'evil'.
To knowingly surrender one's judgement to some group politic and
accept its blessing as adequate justification for whatever evil may
come of it, that goes somewhat beyond willful harm in my view because
it is a case of selling one's soul as the price of admittance to a
clique. It is a case of one's abdicating any power of regulation in
determining just how much harm may be done.
It is different from recognizing that one is in a position of
powerlessness to prevent evil being done, it is rather a matter
becoming a willing participant in it.
I suppose (Cliff's Notes summary for PJ) that means my direct answer
to your question is "it offends me more".
boots
I said in the original post that it was actually about "political
correctness" so I don't see why you should've been so concerned about
my wittle feewings at this late date, have you not openly ridiculed me
in the past and gloried in it? I think you're backpedalling or if
not, needing some valuable introspection.
(I've not read the rest of your response to $Zero.)
Jackson Pillock
> In article
> <527087d9-a9dc-4b7a-9d02-b9fe38807...@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > Is this where I point out that you're a blithering idiot?
>
> Wow, "Jackson" used the word "blithering"...
Homeric irony suits you.
Jackson Pillock
> Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >Is this where I point out that you're a blithering idiot?
>
> Please Jackson, do remember times in the past when you have been shown
> the fool, and do not abuse yourself without cause.
I beg your pardon? I abuse myself all the time just because.
serenebabe
>
> "boots" <n...@no.no> wrote:
<...>
>> Once you accept rulebooks as a replacement for conscience, the devil
>> will sneak into the details. Rulebooks are never a replacement for
>> thought and conscience.
>
> There we are (for once) in complete agreement. There are two things that
> need to be said at this point. Most of the stories of such unthinking
> application of the alleged rulebook turn out on closer examination to be
> grossly exaggerated. Those that do not are generally due to (as you say) an
> unthinking application of what people believe to be the rules, thanks to all
> the publicity given to the exaggerated stories. Thus the myth of PC,
> generated by the Right to beat the Left and excuse their own bigotry,
> perpetuates itself.
You are GOOD. It sure would be cool if you posted even more! :-)
Just Me
> > > Is this where I point out that you're a blithering idiot?
>
> Were "idiocy" all this is, it would be a perfectly blameless and
> exemplary example of the thing.
>
> But insofar as there are plenty of idiots, morons and imbeciles who
> would know better than to post such a subject header . . .
and continue replying to it, you know when you have come upon a human
cesspool posing for a group of "writers"--when you see it.
And you will begin to treat such shit-swimming slough-hounds according
to what is their just dessert.
What a bunch of pink-assed, spoiled rotten, square-headed piddle-
pantsed goyischer nebbishes. You think you have a "right" to such
public use of a word like that? Sure you do, just as I have a right
to jam it right back into your pastey white faces, and into your
stubby little goyischer nose-holes any time you use it, seeing as how
bums like you haven't the faintest glimmer of a clue what it's like to
be on the receiving end of what pigs like you do.
You're born to the privilege of a white, goy ass, you got a head full
of sassy snot and a face full of soft, squishy anaemic-looking skin--
you never had a right to sing the Blues, Mr. and Ms. Whitey Goy-Futz
because you've been pampered in your skin, and in your uppity-ass goy
heritage, you been sheltered from the injury, kept safe from the
wound, from the slap and the kick that teaches the truth that makes
you know better than to do as you do.
And here it isn't even a week before the Inauguration of the first
Black president of the United States--and all you pieces of shit can
show to the world in the subject lines of your headers in this piss-
smelling community of yours is that your heads are full of snot.
White, goy spoiled rotten pamper-ass snot.
John Ashby
>On Jan 15, 12:40 pm, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > On Jan 15, 2:17 am, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>[...] = snippage disclosure
Just for you, [...]
>> I considered changing the subject line and had to balance the offense to
>> blacks and gays against the offense to boots as the original poster and
>> Usenet etiquette.
>trivial Usenet etiquette trumped offending blacks and gays?
>or was it more a case of realizing that neither blacks or gays would
>likely be offended?
>and what about the non-trivial Usenet etiquette of disclosing massive
>snippage?
That in context it was important not simply to change the subject for "PC"
reasons, that this discussion was a legitimate place to use those words.
>> > sometimes, maybe.
>>
>> >> I can go along with that to an extent, but this is a case where
>> >> ignorance
>> >> may be a partial defence, but once the potential for offence is known
>> >> it
>> >> increases the culpability if the use of the words continues.
>>
>> > so if someone explains to you why and how they are offended by the
>> > word nincompoop, and you continue to use it, you become culpable for
>> > offending them?
>>
>> Yes. Focus on behaviour, not on names.
>point mine, i'm pretty sure.
Not at all. You asked about calling someone a nincompoop, I say talk about
their nincompoopery.
>> >> If I call you a wop, I may intend it jocularly or I may genuinely not
>> >> know the history of the word.
>>
>> > i'm an Italian American and i'm not at all offended by the words wop,
>> > or ginney, or dago, or any other such words.
>>
>> Yet there are those who are offended, and those who use them intending to
>> offend.
>personally, i don't know of any Italians anywhere who are offended by
>any of those words.
>but thanks for snipping my other questions in that regard,
>undisclosed, no less.
I answered those I thought relevant. Thus making the discussion (IMO) easier
to follow since it isn't interrupted by screensful of unaddressed post.
>makes the discussion a bit more difficult to follow, in context.
Oh. Our O's clearly differ.
>hence the Usenet etiquette of indicating snippage, particularly in
>longish posts.
>> >> But if you are offended, and you tell me so, the
>> >> next time I use the word it can only be assumed
>> >> that I do intend to offend,
>>
>> > to me, that's very bizarre thinkins.
>>
>> >> even if I use it to some other American of Italian descent.
>>
>> > wow.
>>
>> > now THAT is even far more bizarre than your previous thought.
>>
>> That you find it bizarre is itself bizarre.
>that you don't find it even more bizarre is quadruply bizarre.
>because you're now ironically (and hypocritically) clumping all
>Americans of Italian descent into one category group.
You've forgotten my premise, that you are offended and have told me so. And
as you point out below, Americans of Italian descent *are* a category group.
What is not clear (and is probably not the case) is that all AoId are
offended by being called wops. That some are, though, is cause enough to
avoid the word for all.
Just for you again [...]
>> > in my way of thinkins, it would be far more useful (and attainable) to
>> > educate those who are offended by "disrespectful words" as to why
>> > making certain words unacceptable to use is a bad thing and why they
>> > shouldn't be affected by the usage of any specific words, in and of
>> > themselves.
>>
>> I don't think you've thought through the converse of your argument.
>well, given the facts, there isn't much need to do so.
Present the facts and we might have an interesting discussion.
>> You say
>> below that the suppression of racist words hides racist behaviour, drives
>> it
>> underground, but doesn't eliminate it.
>and in fact perpetuates it where it otherwise may have been further
>eliminated instead.
Evidence?
>> On the other hand, treating those
>> words as inocuous, permitting them in casual discourse,
>> legitimates their use in offensive contexts,
>how so?
>words are words are words.
No, words have meanings and social context. You used to be very hot on
rejecting the brainwash. Consider the way the media uses carefully selected
words to manipulate the views of their readers, listeners and viewers. Take,
for example, the phrase "bogus asylum seeker". This has become so embedded
in the British media that it is now possible to drop the word "bogus" and
produce the same knee jerk reaction. Looked at objectively, there is no such
thing as a bogus asylum seeker - their reasons for seeking asylum may be
such as can be judged by the authorities to be valid or invalid.
>some have many meanings in different contexts.
>> and thereby legitimates the offensive thoughts
>> and behaviours behind them.
>not in the least bit.
You really need to look at a wider picture.
[...]
>> > engendering a society of respect for ALL is not something that even
>> > you agree with, is it?
>>
>> Yes, it is. I may not respect their behaviour, but I can address it in a
>> way
>> that respects them.
>this is where i again wish that you didn't snip my follow-up
>questions.
>but anyway...
>i'm not advocating disrespecting rapists for anything other than their
>behavior, am i?
I don't know, are you? Would you let a rapist plumb in your bathroom? Serve
your coffee? Service your car? Write software for your computer? You don't
need to answer each question individually, these are just examples of
interactions you might have with a rapist where their criminal sexual
behaviour is (hopefully) irrelevant and they can be treated with the respect
due to any plumber, barrista, mechanic or programmer.
[...]
>but i'm obliged to point out that rapists are a category of people.
>and i'm also obliged to re-ask the question you snipped, to wit:
>is "rapist" a "disrespectful word" which ought not be acceptable to
>use in polite society?
No, but its acceptable use is limited to where it is relevant. See above.
>> > are there no sexual behaviors for which you have no respect for?
>>
>> Do you see how you've turned from the people themselves to their
>> behaviour?
>sure.
>> In which case my response to your terrorist/rapist examples should be
>> self-evident.
>but it's not, especially in regards to the word usage issue.
The word usage pertains to the behaviour, and should not be applied where it
is irrelevant. That cuts both ways, by the way. The UK recently suffered an
islamic terrorist attack which was widely and continually reported as
carried out by a couple of doctors. Their medical qualifications had nothing
to do with the manner or motivation of the attack and such reporting served
only to increase the distrust of doctors (especially those with dusky
skins).
[...]
>> > plus, it gives racists a rallying "victimhood" to embrace.
>>
>> That is always a difficult one.
>i'll have to admit to being whoooooooshed by that response.
>should i have been?
>or were you just being sarcastic?
No. Presenting an opportunity to racists to play the victim card is a
problem, but saying nothing, not challenging their racist behaviour, creates
more and worse problems.
john
John Ashby
No. I've teased you and I've held some of the things you've said to ridicule
because I believe them to be ridiculous.
> (I've not read the rest of your response to $Zero.)
Very wise.
john
Just Me
Skipper
<00e0aa7e-6625-49bd...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>,
Jackson Pillock <and...@btinternet.com> wrote:
I never watch The Simpsons, Krusty.
PJ
this subject line. Can we please change it?
No?
Oh well, I tried.
~ ~ ~
PJ
Just Me
Mark
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey Mackie.....
I wanted to ask you a question. (I've not been following
this thread) Anyway, are you using windows vista, and
if so, then how would one go about changing the Discussion
subject? Thanks.
Mark
gekko
furthermore, said:
> butt
knock it off, or I'll tell missus boots.
--
gekko
All progress is based upon a universal innate desire on the part of
every organism to live beyond its income. --Samuel Butler
$Zero
(was: Re: niggers and queers)
On Jan 15, 6:26 pm, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >On Jan 15, 12:40 pm, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > On Jan 15, 2:17 am, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> >[...] = snippage disclosure
>
> Just for you, [...]
well, i need the snippage disclosure far less than anyone else who
might be evaluating your responses against the context because i
probably remember more of what i said in context than anyone else
reading our exchange, which we'll estimate to be none if that will
make you feel better about the whole thing.
> >> I considered changing the subject line and had to balance the offense to
> >> blacks and gays against the offense to boots as the original poster and
> >> Usenet etiquette.
> >
> >trivial Usenet etiquette trumped offending blacks and gays?
> >
> >or was it more a case of realizing that neither blacks or gays would
> >likely be offended?
> >
> >and what about the non-trivial Usenet etiquette of disclosing massive
> >snippage?
>
> That in context it was important not simply to change the subject for "PC"
> reasons, that this discussion was a legitimate place to use those words.
"a legitimate place to use those words".
that's scary.
> >> > sometimes, maybe.
>
> >> >> I can go along with that to an extent, but this is a case where
> >> >> ignorance may be a partial defence, but once the potential for
> >> >> offence is known it increases the culpability if the use of the
> >> >> words continues.
>
> >> > so if someone explains to you why and how they are offended by the
> >> > word nincompoop, and you continue to use it, you become culpable for
> >> > offending them?
>
> >> Yes. Focus on behaviour, not on names.
> >
> >point mine, i'm pretty sure.
>
> Not at all. You asked about calling someone a nincompoop,
no, i asked about using the word nincompoop after you've been told by
someone that they are offended by the use of the word and you said
that a single explanation by a single nincompoop (or at least someone
who considers themselves to be a nincompoop) would forever change your
usage of the word nincompoop.
> I say talk about their nincompoopery.
whoa.
that seems so wrong.
so let me now explain to you how and why i am offended by the word
nincompoop.
[imagine legitimate nincompoop explanation here]
will you now refrain from ever using the word nincompoop?
or at least refrain from ever identifying someone as a nincompoop?
(should you somehow ascertain that they consider themselves to be a
nincompoop).
[...]
-$Zero...
the problem with the truth is...
most people can't handle the truth.
so there's virtually no market for it.
which is precisely how i know that
the new web publication (which i've
been developing for several years)
will be a huge fucking success:
i mean, talk about an enormously large
existing market for a product, huh? whoa.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/4bb5ea232c1ed602
Just Me
I use GOOGLE GROUPS. Just above the text box (where you type your
reply) you'll see in blue type "Edit Subject". Click that and it
opens the subject header line for you to delete what's there and
change it to whatever you want.
In Vista's version of Outlook Express, it's right there for you to
change at will.
Hope that helps!
--
JM
$Zero
(was: Re: niggers and queers)
On Jan 15, 6:26 pm, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >On Jan 15, 12:40 pm, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > On Jan 15, 2:17 am, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >[...] = snippage disclosure
>
> Just for you, [...]
[...]
> >> >> If I call you a wop, I may intend it jocularly or I may genuinely not
> >> >> know the history of the word.
>
> >> > i'm an Italian American and i'm not at all offended by the words wop,
> >> > or ginney, or dago, or any other such words.
>
> >> Yet there are those who are offended, and those who use them intending to
> >> offend.
>
> >personally, i don't know of any Italians anywhere who are offended by
> >any of those words.
>
> >but thanks for snipping my other questions in that regard,
> >undisclosed, no less.
>
> I answered those I thought relevant.
yes, well that's fine, but see, Usenet etiquette dictates that
selective undisclosed snippage in a long discussion tends to distort
the context quite a bit and often results in an unfairly prejudicial
reading of the words of the previous commentor.
undisclosed snippage also tends to let the responder completely off
the hook for any and all cognitive dissonancy that they might have
been experiencing in the previous discussion and is generally
considered taking the easy way out.
and wimpy.
and sometimes even dishonest.
> Thus making the discussion (IMO) easier to follow since it isn't
> interrupted by screensful of unaddressed post.
i think you nailed it pretty good there by characterizing it as
"screensful of unaddressed post".
that is precisely why it's considered bad form to snip willy nilly
without disclosing same.
well, not "why", but "what", more like.
the "why" part should be fairly obvious.
assuming fairness is what is desired, of course.
> >makes the discussion a bit more difficult to follow, in context.
>
> Oh. Our O's clearly differ.
yep.
> >hence the Usenet etiquette of indicating snippage, particularly in
> >longish posts.
> >
> >> >> But if you are offended, and you tell me so, the
> >> >> next time I use the word it can only be assumed
> >> >> that I do intend to offend,
>
> >> > to me, that's very bizarre thinkins.
>
> >> >> even if I use it to some other American of Italian descent.
>
> >> > wow.
>
> >> > now THAT is even far more bizarre than your previous thought.
>
> >> That you find it bizarre is itself bizarre.
> >
> >that you don't find it even more bizarre is quadruply bizarre.
> >because you're now ironically (and hypocritically) clumping all
> >Americans of Italian descent into one category group.
>
> You've forgotten my premise, that you are offended and have told me so.
i didn't forget.
nor did i snip it.
> And as you point out below, Americans of Italian descent
> *are* a category group.
yet, in the snippage you said that there is no such thing as
categories of people, or somesuch.
that was part of the cognitive dissonance that i had handed you on a
silver platter.
well, your head, anyway.
> What is not clear (and is probably not the case) is that all AoId are
> offended by being called wops. That some are, though, is cause enough to
> avoid the word for all.
so you'll be totally avoiding the word nincompoop from now on, i take
it?
> Just for you again [...]
mercy beaucoup, however, as i said in a sister thread:
"well, i need the snippage disclosure far less than
anyone else who might be evaluating your responses
against the context because i probably remember more
of what i said in context than anyone else reading
our exchange, which we'll estimate to be none if that
will make you feel better about the whole thing."
nincompoops (illegitimate word usage)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/2ef28b9e6715895d
so what happens when you snip bunches of post (particularly when not
disclosing same while continuing with the long discussion) is throw
everyone else off the scent.
> >> > in my way of thinkins, it would be far more useful (and attainable) to
> >> > educate those who are offended by "disrespectful words" as to why
> >> > making certain words unacceptable to use is a bad thing and why they
> >> > shouldn't be affected by the usage of any specific words, in and of
> >> > themselves.
>
> >> I don't think you've thought through the converse of your argument.
>
> >well, given the facts, there isn't much need to do so.
>
> Present the facts and we might have an interesting discussion.
well, for starters it is a fact that i am not at all offended by the
words wop, ginney, greaseball, dago, etc., and i don't know any other
Italians who are, and i know quite a few Italians.
how do you explain that?
also, i refer you to the related questions which you snipped in that
regard:
i've heard them used all of my life but nobody
ever told me to be offended by those words.
am i seriously remiss in that regard?
should i spend some time learning the history of those words?
will that help me become offended by them?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/ee97861b4ebaba45
personally, i find those to be interesting and highly relevant
questions.
see, i was trying to make a point.
and instead of snipping them away, if you had answered those questions
honestly, you may have stumbled across that point.
and even if you didn't stumble upon the point while honestly answering
the questions, included in your snippage was this bit:
for instance, i'd much rather see the young black girl
(that jervis is trolling about being reduced to tears
or somesuch) be totally indifferent to the word nigger
when stumbling upon such a discussion. just like i am
totally indifferent to the words wop, ginney, dago, etc.
for some reason, others would rather she be devastated.
that's what encouraging the PC thinger enables.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/ee97861b4ebaba45
> >> You say below that the suppression of racist words hides racist
> >> behaviour, drives it underground, but doesn't eliminate it.
> >
> >and in fact perpetuates it where it otherwise may have been further
> >eliminated instead.
>
> Evidence?
the fact that i, and every other Italain i know, are not in the least
bit offended by those wop words.
i posit that it is partly because those words were never banned from
usage.
as far as i know, none of us Italians ever made a big deal about
anyone using those words.
we just let them naturally fizzle out on their own, i suppose.
the same applies to many other ethnic slurs, as far as i can tell.
like those applied to the Irish, the English, the German, the French,
the Polish, the Chinese, etc..
OTOH, those ethnic groups which make a big stinking deal out of
certain words seem to be mired in endless conflict over same.
do you have any counter evidence?
> >> On the other hand, treating those
> >> words as inocuous, permitting them in casual discourse,
> >> legitimates their use in offensive contexts,
> >
> >how so?
> >
> >words are words are words.
>
> No, words have meanings and social context. You used to be
> very hot on rejecting the brainwash.
used to be?
heh.
> Consider the way the media uses carefully selected words
> to manipulate the views of their readers, listeners and viewers.
but that's precisely my point.
> Take, for example, the phrase "bogus asylum seeker".
i'm not familiar with that particular phrase.
so the effect you speak of is pretty much lost on me.
get it?
> This has become so embedded
> in the British media that it is now possible to drop the word "bogus" and
> produce the same knee jerk reaction. Looked at objectively, there is no such
> thing as a bogus asylum seeker - their reasons for seeking asylum may be
> such as can be judged by the authorities to be valid or invalid.
i'm not sure how that relates to our discussion since you're not
advocating the unacceptability of the word "bogus" now are you?
but let me change the focus to the way the word "Liberal" has been
hijacked and turned into a slur.
should we now make the use of that word unacceptable?
would that solve it?
would making the use of word "Liberal" unacceptable remove the slur
effect?
um... i don't think so.
that would be a totally bogus and nincompoopish strategy, wouldn't it?
> >some have many meanings in different contexts.
> >
> >> and thereby legitimates the offensive thoughts
> >> and behaviours behind them.
> >
> >not in the least bit.
>
> You really need to look at a wider picture.
see above discussion regarding the use of the word Liberal.
what are your recommendations in that regard?
make it unacceptable because some idiots use it as a slur?
-$Zero...
John Ashby
> nincompoops of the world unite!
>
> (was: Re: niggers and queers)
>
> On Jan 15, 6:26 pm, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >On Jan 15, 12:40 pm, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> > On Jan 15, 2:17 am, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> And as you point out below, Americans of Italian descent
>> *are* a category group.
>
> yet, in the snippage you said that there is no such thing as
> categories of people, or somesuch.
>
Yes. I should more properly have said that people are not solely defined by
single categories. That was implicit in my discussion of rapist plumbers,
car mechanics, etc.
It's not one I use much anyway, and no I won't avoid the word completely. I
might, for example, say "You're behaving lke a nincompoop" or "That's an
argument I'd expect from a nincompoop."
>> >> > shouldn't be affected by the usage of any specific words, in and of
>> >> > themselves.
>>
>> >> I don't think you've thought through the converse of your argument.
>>
>> >well, given the facts, there isn't much need to do so.
>>
>> Present the facts and we might have an interesting discussion.
>
> well, for starters it is a fact that i am not at all offended by the
> words wop, ginney, greaseball, dago, etc., and i don't know any other
> Italians who are, and i know quite a few Italians.
>
> how do you explain that?
>
> also, i refer you to the related questions which you snipped in that
> regard:
>
>
> i've heard them used all of my life but nobody
> ever told me to be offended by those words.
>
> am i seriously remiss in that regard?
>
> should i spend some time learning the history of those words?
>
> will that help me become offended by them?
>
Yes, yes and yes. Because those words *are* used with intent to offend, and
if you don't recognize that you won't recognize and be offended by the
attitudes behind them. From there it's a short step to legitimating the
attitudes.
If you think that nobody is prejudiced against those nationalities, then we
move in very different circles. And I note that you exclude (or lump into
"etc.") Americans against whom there is currently a great deal of antipathy
out in the world.
No, or rather, not yet. Our first duty as Liberals is to resist the
subversion of that word by reminding people of the proud achievements of the
liberal traditon.. Only if we lose that battle do we (possibly) turn to
putting the word on a proscribed list, having first re-branded ourselves as
something else.
> would that solve it?
>
> would making the use of word "Liberal" unacceptable remove the slur
> effect?
>
So you advocate reclaiming the word Liberal in the same way some sections of
the gay community want reclaim queer. That's fine, but it has to be the
victim who decides that. Last time I looked there was a fierce debate raging
amongst gays about queer, divided between those who believe that reclaiming
the word will deprive bigots of a weapon to use against them and those who
believe that any such use gives legitimacy to its use by, and hence the
attitudes of, the bigots. You seem to ally yourself with the former when you
say you're not offended by wop. Those who take the latter position draw the
analogy with the ivory trade. Ivory came from two sources, from elephants
which had died naturally or been humanely and carefully culled and from
elephants hunted and poached. Because the poachers were endangering the
long-term survival of the species, and because it was difficult or
impossible to distinguish betwen legally and illegally obtained ivory, all
trade in ivory was outlawed, even though it removed a significant source of
legitimate income from some very poor nations (with their consent). If it is
difficult or impossible to tell whether someone is being called a queer in a
positive, empowering way or as a term of abuse, then it's better not to use
it at all. Then you know that it's abuse, just as any ivory on the market
must be poached.
john
boots
>I'm sorry to be unattractively politically correct, but I really detest
>this subject line. Can we please change it?
Can you figure out how? If so, go for it.
>No?
>
>Oh well, I tried.
Huh?
Bernie
> PJ <autho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm sorry to be unattractively politically correct, but I
>>really detest
>>this subject line. Can we please change it?
>
> Can you figure out how? If so, go for it.
>
>>No?
>>
>>Oh well, I tried.
>
> Huh?
There, it's fixed.
Bernie.
> --
> http://www.commentsfromnobody.blogspot.com
boots
>
>"boots" <n...@no.no> wrote in message
>news:77q0n41aknsemmut5...@4ax.com...
>> PJ <autho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm sorry to be unattractively politically correct, but I
>>>really detest
>>>this subject line. Can we please change it?
>>
>> Can you figure out how? If so, go for it.
>>
>>>No?
>>>
>>>Oh well, I tried.
>>
>> Huh?
>
>There, it's fixed.
>
>Bernie.
Good girl, Bernie. Now we have a new thread about changing subject
lines.
Thing is, PJ was really requesting that anyone posting to the old
thread change the subject line to something new. To what, I dunno.
Since you've started this new thread maybe they'll remember to change
the subject line to the new subject you chose. Or maybe they'll want
to remember, but forget anyway. Maybe they don't care.
Usenet innit.
$Zero
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > nincompoops of the world unite!
>
> > (was: Re: niggers and queers)
>
> > On Jan 15, 6:26 pm, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >On Jan 15, 12:40 pm, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > On Jan 15, 2:17 am, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> [..]
>
> >> And as you point out below, Americans of Italian descent
> >> *are* a category group.
>
> > yet, in the snippage you said that there is no such thing as
> > categories of people, or somesuch.
>
> Yes. I should more properly have said that people are not solely
> defined by single categories.
well, who in the hell doesn't know that?
> That was implicit in my discussion of rapist plumbers, car mechanics, etc.
was it?
btw, did you ever get around to deciding whether the word "rapist"
should be unacceptable to use in polite society?
IOW, as the "victims" of that word, should rapists start campaigning
against its use?
> > that was part of the cognitive dissonance that i had handed you on a
> > silver platter.
>
> > well, your head, anyway.
>
> >> What is not clear (and is probably not the case) is that all AoId are
> >> offended by being called wops. That some are, though, is cause enough to
> >> avoid the word for all.
>
> > so you'll be totally avoiding the word nincompoop from now on, i take
> > it?
because you've been enlightened by a self-identifying nincompoop that
its use is offensive.
um, do you see what i'm getting at yet?
making words unacceptable to use is quite nincompoopish.
> >> Just for you again [...]
>
> > mercy beaucoup, however, as i said in a sister thread:
>
> > "well, i need the snippage disclosure far less than
> > anyone else who might be evaluating your responses
> > against the context because i probably remember more
> > of what i said in context than anyone else reading
> > our exchange, which we'll estimate to be none if that
> > will make you feel better about the whole thing."
>
> > nincompoops (illegitimate word usage)
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/2ef28b9e6715895d
>
> > so what happens when you snip bunches of post (particularly when not
> > disclosing same while continuing with the long discussion) is throw
> > everyone else off the scent.
>
> >> >> > in my way of thinkins, it would be far more useful (and attainable)
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > educate those who are offended by "disrespectful words" as to why
> >> >> > making certain words unacceptable to use is a bad thing and why they
>
> It's not one I use much anyway,
cool.
well, that makes things quite a bit easier for you, huh?
> and no I won't avoid the word completely.
as a major nincompoop, i take serious offense at your slackery in that
regard.
> I might, for example, say "You're behaving lke a nincompoop" or
> "That's an argument I'd expect from a nincompoop."
substitute the word "nigger" with "nincompoop" in your sentences
above.
try "rapist" as well.
and "wop".
see how that works?
...
anyway, one assumes that the word nigger came about as a way to refer
to those people who were forcibly taken against their will from Niger.
so i don't see why one couldn't use it completely proudly and
harmlessly to simply refer to descendants of Nigerians.
but even if it were invented out of thin air by racists pigs, that's
no sensible reason to relegate it to the unacceptable use pile of
words that can only be thought of as offensive.
words can evolve into whatever form people like.
words can have multiple meanings, as so many words do.
nigger, for instance, is already widely used as a term of endearment.
> >> >> > shouldn't be affected by the usage of any specific words, in and of
> >> >> > themselves.
>
> >> >> I don't think you've thought through the converse of your argument.
>
> >> >well, given the facts, there isn't much need to do so.
>
> >> Present the facts and we might have an interesting discussion.
>
> > well, for starters it is a fact that i am not at all offended by the
> > words wop, ginney, greaseball, dago, etc., and i don't know any other
> > Italians who are, and i know quite a few Italians.
>
> > how do you explain that?
>
> > also, i refer you to the related questions which you snipped in that
> > regard:
>
> > i've heard them used all of my life but nobody
> > ever told me to be offended by those words.
>
> > am i seriously remiss in that regard?
>
> > should i spend some time learning the history of those words?
>
> > will that help me become offended by them?
>
> Yes, yes and yes.
holy shit!
are you serious?
as an Italian American, i'm not at all offended by the word wop (and
never have been, and don't know of anyone who is or ever was) and you
actually think i'm remiss in that regard and that i should spend my
time learning the history of that word so that i may become offended
by it?
do you see how insanely nincompoopish that is?
> Because those words *are* used with intent to offend,
who the fuck cares?
every single word in the english language is used with intent to
offend.
> and if you don't recognize that you won't recognize and be offended by
> the attitudes behind them.
B does not follow A.
let alone C.
> From there it's a short step to legitimating the attitudes.
bzzzt.
the only thing i could possibly be legitimizing by spending my time
learning the isolated history of a word's usage by bigots (and then
pointlessly become offended by same) would be the value of the word as
a slur.
now why would i ever want to spend my time legitimizing a slur?
that would be utterly nincompoopish, don't you think?
please say yes.
i think that every nationality is prejudiced against by some nitwits
somewhere.
but that's entirely besides the point.
what i was noting was that when the words used to slur nationalities
(etc.) are NOT made a big deal of, those words do not tend to
seriously offend anyone.
it is the very act of trying to make them unacceptable which gives
them their undue power to offend.
see how that works?
it's a self-generating offense.
> And I note that you exclude (or lump into "etc.") Americans against whom
> there is currently a great deal of antipathy out in the world.
well then, let's make the word "American" unacceptable to use then,
aye?
that'll make things better, huh?
yikes.
...
anyway, anyone who is stupid enough to attribute the evil idiotic
negativity of the Bush administration with the word American (and 300
million individual Americans, to boot) is not going to be among those
reasonable enough (or intelligent enough) to make language of any use
in the first place.
next up, the words "Muslim" and "Jew" and "Christian" and "Atheist"
are deemed offensive and therefore added to the list of unacceptable
slurs.
and let's not forget "Nazi".
no yet, FFS?
can you possibly map out for me a future circumstance that would make
it a reasonable time to consider making the word "Liberal"
unacceptable to use?
yikes.
i await your meeting this particular challenge with much amusement.
> Our first duty as Liberals is to resist the subversion of that word
hello.
> by reminding people of the proud achievements of the liberal traditon.
is that really necessary?
wtf.
how about we just use the word in coherent sentences?
wouldn't that suffice?
> Only if we lose that battle
again, i await your description of such a scenario with much
anticipation and amusement.
> Only if we lose that battle do we (possibly) turn to putting the word on
> a proscribed list, having first re-branded ourselves as something else.
whoa.
now we're brands.
and we need re-branding!
...
so is there a website out there somewhere for people to check out
these proscribed lists of unacceptable words to use?
that would be really handy, don't you think?
who could run it, i wonder.
> > would that solve it?
>
> > would making the use of word "Liberal" unacceptable remove the slur
> > effect?
>
> So you advocate reclaiming the word Liberal in the same way some
> sections of the gay community want reclaim queer.
no.
i advocate not accepting that the word liberal will ever need to
become unacceptable to use just because a bunch of idiots use it as a
slur.
same with all other words.
surely that must make some scintilla of sense to you, no?
> That's fine, but it has to be the victim who decides that.
enter the rapists, the terrorists, and the nincompoops.
> Last time I looked there was a fierce debate raging
> amongst gays about queer, divided between those who believe that reclaiming
> the word will deprive bigots of a weapon to use against them and those who
> believe that any such use gives legitimacy to its use by, and hence the
> attitudes of, the bigots.
so who decides when this "fierce debate" has been settled?
and if it's the word bigots who win that debate, how do we then go
about registering the word on the proscribed list of unacceptable
words website?
> You seem to ally yourself with the former when you
> say you're not offended by wop.
well, no.
i align myself with those who think that words can NEVER become
unacceptable to use.
i align myself with those who are not at all offended by silly slur
words like wop.
> Those who take the latter position draw the
> analogy with the ivory trade.
oh. my. gawd.
> Ivory came from two sources, from elephants
> which had died naturally or been humanely and carefully culled and from
> elephants hunted and poached. Because the poachers were endangering the
> long-term survival of the species, and because it was difficult or
> impossible to distinguish betwen legally and illegally obtained ivory, all
> trade in ivory was outlawed, even though it removed a significant source of
> legitimate income from some very poor nations (with their consent). If it is
> difficult or impossible to tell whether someone is being called a queer in a
> positive, empowering way or as a term of abuse, then it's better not to use
> it at all. Then you know that it's abuse, just as any ivory on the market
> must be poached.
"ebony and ivory,
side by side
in perfect harmony
like the keys on my piano,
oh why can't we?"
-- some Paul McCartney song.
-$Zero...
boots
>so who decides when this "fierce debate" has been settled?
I do, it's a waste of time.
Bernie
> "Bernie" <rain...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>"boots" <n...@no.no> wrote in message
>>news:77q0n41aknsemmut5...@4ax.com...
>>> PJ <autho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm sorry to be unattractively politically correct, but I
>>>>really detest
>>>>this subject line. Can we please change it?
>>>
>>> Can you figure out how? If so, go for it.
>>>
>>>>No?
>>>>
>>>>Oh well, I tried.
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>
>>There, it's fixed.
>>
>>Bernie.
>
> Good girl, Bernie. Now we have a new thread about changing
> subject
> lines.
>
> Thing is, PJ was really requesting that anyone posting to the
> old
> thread change the subject line to something new. To what, I
> dunno.
>
> Since you've started this new thread maybe they'll remember to
> change
> the subject line to the new subject you chose.
Silly boots, *they* won't need to remember to change the subject
line because the programme repeats it for them automagically. ;)
boots
When you backpedal like that does your bicycle go in reverse?
boots
>On 2009-01-15 12:15:09 -0500, "John Ashby" <johna...@yahoo.com> said:
<snip>
>> Most of the stories of such unthinking
>> application of the alleged rulebook turn out on closer examination to be
>> grossly exaggerated. Those that do not are generally due to (as you say) an
>> unthinking application of what people believe to be the rules, thanks to all
>> the publicity given to the exaggerated stories.
<snip>
Which of his two categories of unthinking does your "chinky" story
fall into, Heather?
>You are GOOD. It sure would be cool if you posted even more! :-)
Your powers of manipulation never cease to... hmmm, what's the word
here, "persist"?
boots
One of my few redeeming qualities innit.
> *they* won't need to remember to change the subject
>line because the programme repeats it for them automagically. ;)
Well see, "the programme" automagically repeats the subject line of
whatever post they reply to. So unless they specifically change it
when replying to a post in the original thread, the old subject line
will live on indefinitely.
I hope it won't offend you that I ask this, but as one of the few
blackish-skinned people who are known to read this group, were you
offended by the original subject line or the content of the original
post?
serenebabe
> serenebabe <seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-01-15 12:15:09 -0500, "John Ashby" <johna...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> <snip>
>>> Most of the stories of such unthinking
>>> application of the alleged rulebook turn out on closer examination to be
>>> grossly exaggerated. Those that do not are generally due to (as you say) an
>>> unthinking application of what people believe to be the rules, thanks to all
>>> the publicity given to the exaggerated stories.
> <snip>
>
> Which of his two categories of unthinking does your "chinky" story
> fall into, Heather?
<...>
It doesn't really apply, actually. I think John's words there are
talking about the perception people have of "being PC."
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >"boots" <n...@no.no> wrote in message
> >news:of1vm4lrm6us5rvkp...@4ax.com...
Only on a fixed gear bike. If you watch track racing you will notice
that those bikes have no brakes and no changeable gears. Most bike
couriers use fixed gear bikes with a front brake.
boots
>On 2009-01-16 09:15:38 -0500, boots <n...@no.no> said:
>
>> serenebabe <seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-01-15 12:15:09 -0500, "John Ashby" <johna...@yahoo.com> said:
>>
>> <snip>
>>>> Most of the stories of such unthinking
>>>> application of the alleged rulebook turn out on closer examination to be
>>>> grossly exaggerated. Those that do not are generally due to (as you say) an
>>>> unthinking application of what people believe to be the rules, thanks to all
>>>> the publicity given to the exaggerated stories.
>> <snip>
>>
>> Which of his two categories of unthinking does your "chinky" story
>> fall into, Heather?
><...>
>
>It doesn't really apply, actually.
Oh. I see.
Bernie
Which is (more or less) what I said up there, isn't it?
So unless they specifically change it
> when replying to a post in the original thread, the old subject
> line
> will live on indefinitely.
Quite so. Which is, (more or less), etc.
>
> I hope it won't offend you that I ask this, but as one of the
> few
> blackish-skinned people who are known to read this group, were
> you
> offended by the original subject line or the content of the
> original
> post?
With tongue firmly planted in cheek, as I imagine yours was:
No, bootsie dear. Even if I *were* one of the blackish skinned
people I doubt that I would have been offended by the original
subject line or the content.
(It may be that advancing age gives one a broader perspective.
But then again, we neither of us should presume to speak for
others, should we?)
Bernie.
>
> --
> http://www.commentsfromnobody.blogspot.com
boots
>It may be that advancing age gives one a broader perspective.
Seems only fair we should get something for our time doesn't it?
>But then again, we neither of us should presume to speak for
>others, should we?
Everyone here in misc.writing agrees with that. <g>
gekko
furthermore, said:
> Thing is, PJ was really requesting that anyone posting to the old
> thread change the subject line to something new.
Nuh uh! PJ was really really requesting we all shop for stuff
pertaining to bananas.
You missed the point, because you totally lack the genes to grasp
satire and subtlety.
boots
>boots <n...@no.no> put the bop in the bop-shoo-bop-shoo-bop, and,
>furthermore, said:
>
>
>> Thing is, PJ was really requesting that anyone posting to the old
>> thread change the subject line to something new.
>
>Nuh uh! PJ was really really requesting we all shop for stuff
>pertaining to bananas.
>
>You missed the point, because you totally lack the genes to grasp
>satire and subtlety.
Have I mentioned that you're a habitual buttcrack?
Alan Hope
>"John Ashby" <johna...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> It is not the words that offend me, or the idea that some words are
>>> intensely loaded and should be used accordingly, but the idea that a
>>> rulebook named political correctness can validly be used to replace
>>> the effort of realtime thought and insight.
>>
>>Does that idea offend you more or less than the bigotry behind the
>>deliberately offensive use of terms such as those in the subject of this
>>thread?
>
>The key here is "deliberately offensive use" of said terms.
>
>I think that mostly such terms are used ignorantly or thoughtlessly.
That's no excuse. As John has said, it might be a partial mitigation
on the first occasion, but not ever again thereafter.
And as long as there are people like you going around lamenting the
days when you could cheerfully call an elderly black man "boy", the
ignorance is likely to continue.
Alan Hope
>serenebabe <seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 2009-01-15 12:15:09 -0500, "John Ashby" <johna...@yahoo.com> said:
><snip>
>>> Most of the stories of such unthinking
>>> application of the alleged rulebook turn out on closer examination to be
>>> grossly exaggerated. Those that do not are generally due to (as you say) an
>>> unthinking application of what people believe to be the rules, thanks to all
>>> the publicity given to the exaggerated stories.
><snip>
>Which of his two categories of unthinking does your "chinky" story
>fall into, Heather?
What's unthinking about it? She thinks people ought not to refer to
Asians as Chinkies. You think they should go ahead if they want to,
because rules are for squares, man.
Just because you don't agree doesn't mean her POV is unthinking. The
fact that she's right weighs a lot in her favour. Though being wrong
has never held you up at all in the past.
>>You are GOOD. It sure would be cool if you posted even more! :-)
>Your powers of manipulation never cease to... hmmm, what's the word
>here, "persist"?
You're so fucking juvenile.
Alan Hope
>On Jan 14, 9:27 pm, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
>> In article
>> <527087d9-a9dc-4b7a-9d02-b9fe38807...@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> > Is this where I point out that you're a blithering idiot?
>>
>> Wow, "Jackson" used the word "blithering"...
>
>Were "idiocy" all this is
Somebody types the words "blithering idiot" and Jervis takes it as an
invocation.
boots
>boots goes:
>
>>"John Ashby" <johna...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> It is not the words that offend me, or the idea that some words are
>>>> intensely loaded and should be used accordingly, but the idea that a
>>>> rulebook named political correctness can validly be used to replace
>>>> the effort of realtime thought and insight.
>>>
>>>Does that idea offend you more or less than the bigotry behind the
>>>deliberately offensive use of terms such as those in the subject of this
>>>thread?
>>
>>The key here is "deliberately offensive use" of said terms.
>>
>>I think that mostly such terms are used ignorantly or thoughtlessly.
>
>That's no excuse.
Of course it isn't.
> As John has said, it might be a partial mitigation
>on the first occasion, but not ever again thereafter.
An unacceptable-words list is no solution.
>And as long as there are people like you going around lamenting the
>days when you could cheerfully call an elderly black man "boy", the
>ignorance is likely to continue.
As long as you continue making things up from whole cloth you will
remain ignorant of the solution.
boots
>You're so fucking juvenile.
It's good to read your glowing words of praise once again, you seem
not to have changed during your absence.
Skipper
<usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
How's that Ned Flanders Today column comin' along, Hopeless?
boots
It's unfortunate that the more thoughtful readers of misc.writing seem
to post infrequently and we're left with the likes of Skip, Hope,
Ashby, Heather, gekko, and so forth and so on.
Yeah, me too. But this shite doth wear one down.
$Zero
> It's unfortunate that the more thoughtful readers of misc.writing seem
> to post infrequently and we're left with the likes of Skip, Hope,
> Ashby, Heather, gekko, and so forth and so on.
>
> Yeah, me too. But this shite doth wear one down.
with a single exception, i consider every other person on your list to
be a thoughtful reader and poster, particularly Ashby.
-$Zero...
can you possibly map out for me a future circumstance
that would make it a reasonable time to consider
making the word "Liberal" unacceptable to use?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d61c60f98f51fb13
boots
>On Jan 16, 11:25 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
>> It's unfortunate that the more thoughtful readers of misc.writing seem
>> to post infrequently and we're left with the likes of Skip, Hope,
>> Ashby, Heather, gekko, and so forth and so on.
>>
>> Yeah, me too. But this shite doth wear one down.
>
>with a single exception, i consider every other person on your list to
>be a thoughtful reader and poster, particularly Ashby.
I prefer rather than to wonder who that person is to assume it is me.
--
sig text to prevent insertion of advertising
$Zero
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 16, 11:25 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
> >> It's unfortunate that the more thoughtful readers of misc.writing seem
> >> to post infrequently and we're left with the likes of Skip, Hope,
> >> Ashby, Heather, gekko, and so forth and so on.
>
> >> Yeah, me too. But this shite doth wear one down.
>
> >with a single exception, i consider every other person on your list to
> >be a thoughtful reader and poster, particularly Ashby.
>
> I prefer rather than to wonder who that person is to assume it is me.
which is one of the many reasons why it's definitely not you.
-$Zero...
the problem with the truth is...
most people can't handle the truth.
so there's virtually no market for it.
which is precisely how i know that
the new web publication (which i've
been developing for several years)
will be a huge fucking success:
i mean, talk about an enormously large
existing market for a product, huh? whoa.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/4bb5ea232c1ed602
gekko
furthermore, said:
> gekko <Miz....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>boots <n...@no.no> put the bop in the bop-shoo-bop-shoo-bop, and,
>>furthermore, said:
>>
>>
>>> Thing is, PJ was really requesting that anyone posting to the old
>>> thread change the subject line to something new.
>>
>>Nuh uh! PJ was really really requesting we all shop for stuff
>>pertaining to bananas.
>>
>>You missed the point, because you totally lack the genes to grasp
>>satire and subtlety.
>
> Have I mentioned that you're a habitual buttcrack?
>
Alas, but you continue to fail to grasp the messages. Now you're
letting your emotions override all else. So childish.
John Ashby
> Alan Hope <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>boots goes:
>>
>>>"John Ashby" <johna...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It is not the words that offend me, or the idea that some words are
>>>>> intensely loaded and should be used accordingly, but the idea that a
>>>>> rulebook named political correctness can validly be used to replace
>>>>> the effort of realtime thought and insight.
>>>>
>>>>Does that idea offend you more or less than the bigotry behind the
>>>>deliberately offensive use of terms such as those in the subject of this
>>>>thread?
>>>
>>>The key here is "deliberately offensive use" of said terms.
>>>
>>>I think that mostly such terms are used ignorantly or thoughtlessly.
>>
>>That's no excuse.
>
> Of course it isn't.
>
>> As John has said, it might be a partial mitigation
>>on the first occasion, but not ever again thereafter.
>
> An unacceptable-words list is no solution.
Then what is?
john
boots
>On Jan 16, 11:56 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 16, 11:25 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>>
>> >> It's unfortunate that the more thoughtful readers of misc.writing seem
>> >> to post infrequently and we're left with the likes of Skip, Hope,
>> >> Ashby, Heather, gekko, and so forth and so on.
>>
>> >> Yeah, me too. But this shite doth wear one down.
>>
>> >with a single exception, i consider every other person on your list to
>> >be a thoughtful reader and poster, particularly Ashby.
>>
>> I prefer rather than to wonder who that person is to assume it is me.
>
>which is one of the many reasons why it's definitely not you.
So you're going to force the rest to question it? Assuming of course
that they care what you think? Better just to say it's me and let the
rest off the hook. They might break something if they try to figure
out who it is.
I'm trying to decide who's the least thoughtful of the lot. Hope has
made an image of me from whole cloth or some approximation thereof and
refuses to let it out of his teeth. Ashby views himself as some
intellectual prince but like Hope he's thinking down a pipe of ideas
he isn't allowed to diverge from.
Everybody needs their usenet points. I'm crankier than fucking hell
this morning. I know exactly why that is. I'll deal with it soon,
undoubtedly I'll run out of excuses to continue avoiding it
momentarily.
Today's the day I deal with my taxes for 2008. Not personal taxes,
I've not bothered to file those in nearly a decade. But corporate
taxes. Those have to be filed yearly regardless of income or loss.
I've done it for 6 or 7 or maybe it's only 5 years now, and every year
it's the same. I dread it beforehand because I'm afraid I'll not
understand what to put in the little boxes, then eventually I do it,
then I think hey that wasn't so bad. But the dread remains every
year.
Soon.
boots
boots
>boots <n...@no.no> put the bop in the bop-shoo-bop-shoo-bop, and,
>furthermore, said:
>
>
>> gekko <Miz....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>boots <n...@no.no> put the bop in the bop-shoo-bop-shoo-bop, and,
>>>furthermore, said:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thing is, PJ was really requesting that anyone posting to the old
>>>> thread change the subject line to something new.
>>>
>>>Nuh uh! PJ was really really requesting we all shop for stuff
>>>pertaining to bananas.
>>>
>>>You missed the point, because you totally lack the genes to grasp
>>>satire and subtlety.
>>
>> Have I mentioned that you're a habitual buttcrack?
>>
>
>Alas, but you continue to fail to grasp the messages. Now you're
>letting your emotions override all else. So childish.
It's my income tax day, I'm allowed to be crankier than fuck today.
gekko
Take a coupla Midol<tm> and move on, son. Don't let your brain cell
use that as an excuse. You're only enabling its moods.
So 1099s are permitted to be delayed. How can you be doing taxes?
gekko
furthermore, said:
> So you're going to force the rest to question it?
The rest are smart enough to figure it out, CrankyBoy.