Some choose to call me a racist. by Wulfenstar

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I've been trying to find a site (OR a cite) for that particular trick! I heard about it on the radio. By simply repeating a string of about five words... which seem very innocuous and not at all related... you can force a response about 75% of the time.

I wish the left-wing would have thought of that!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 12:51 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

AHA!

GOT IT!

The guy's name is Frank Luntz.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 12:54 PM

Quote:
ETA: And for some reason, I also think of Al Pacinos character as Frem.

Well, I've certainly got the outfit for it.

Small wonder my nieces classmates think I'm with the mafia...

-F

PS. On watching the clip, certainly got the mouth for it too, I've done as much or worse, up to and including decking a public defender who tried to take a dive on me in open court.

ETA: Siggy, I'd cuss even more, save that you already know I do that, having both watched me do it, and flatly admit to doing so, often as not directly to the folk I WAS doing it to - which didn't make a whit of difference in their susceptibility to it that I noticed.

You know the right triggers, I kid you not, you can send them into PERMANENT pyschological meltdown that way.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:12 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Wulf, the right wing... YES, the RIGHT WING... is very good at whipping up faux populism and using that energy to take even MORE away from you!

More later.

Here's all the proof you need:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909180037

Yup, that's a FauxNews producer whipping up the crowd at the 9/12 rally. Not that they'd ever try to influence the "independent" crowd of "grassroots" protesters or anything, right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Rue, dont you have some pain pills to take?

Wulf, don't you have a Klan rally to lead?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:45 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I was SOOoooo ... close to posting something. You need to read your email to find out what it was.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:46 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Siggy, I'd cuss even more, save that you already know I do that, having both watched me do it, and flatly admit to doing so, often as not directly to the folk I WAS doing it to - which didn't make a whit of difference in their susceptibility to it that I noticed.

You know the right triggers, I kid you not, you can send them into PERMANENT pyschological meltdown that way."

What does that mean?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:24 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Frem: heh heh heh

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 4:54 PM

Oh good god. This has really turned into a flamewar. What to respond to:

1. Okay, item one on the agenda, Wulf, making fun of Rue's pain is out of line. Apologize.

2. I think that my comment on the "can't we all just get along" objectivity post (Nik's) needs to be re

3. Sig, I think I just posted a thread about him. Tricks we all need to learn. Useful stuff. We should code and decode.

"War in Afghanistan" is too neutral. Nik, got a better name for it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 5:44 PM

BYTEMITE

Wulf: I don't know if that was a suggestion for Rue to overdose, or if you were merely taking a pot shot at her, but that wasn't kosher.

You have the right to free speech, and rue and sig and you attack each other a lot, but there's some things that are just not socially acceptable. Sorry man. Some things, even if you're mad, you just shouldn't say. I called it on sig when she did it to you, and I'm calling you on it too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 9:30 PM

DMAANLILEILTT

First, I don't know how noone picked this up:
"The things I agree with:

equality
there is no such thing as "equality""

It's good to know that you don't believe in something that you agree with.

Also, there are many a country that have government-funded health care, including my own, and democracy hasn't imploded on itself as some protestors have been heard to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:31 PM

Quote:
What does that mean?

It means, Wulf - if I have enough of a grip on how someones mental processes work, what their pyschological issues and weaknesses are, I can quite literally cause them to have a full on mental breakdown just by talking to them.

There's even a listed trope for it, I kid thee not.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HannibalLecture

I actually backed off a certain right wingie here cause I was earnestly concerned he was pretty close to that kinda meltdown already and I didn't wanna get my hands dirty finishing the job.

Oh my, looks like someone other than me realized a certain natural progression does occur on a rare occasion, damn that fits.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MaddenIntoMisanthropy

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 5:21 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
First, I don't know how noone picked this up:
"The things I agree with:

equality
there is no such thing as "equality""

It's good to know that you don't believe in something that you agree with.

Also, there are many a country that have government-funded health care, including my own, and democracy hasn't imploded on itself as some protestors have been heard to say.

Actually, I think Wulf's intention is that to suggest equality is something more to be worked towards then it is possible to actually achieve.

Otherwise, yes, confusing, and it reminds me of an experiment I read about recently on this board.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 8:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Wulf- have you bailed from the thread? I still would like to talk about PC. Maye we can move at least ONE item off the plate!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 8:51 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Actually, I think Wulf's intention is that to suggest equality is something more to be worked towards then it is possible to actually achieve."

You nailed it in one. Good job.

I would also add that holding down one, to lift up another, has never worked.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 8:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I would also add that holding down one, to lift up another, has never worked.

Well, since that is the basis of capitalism... the lifeboat model of jobs... only enough for some, but not enough for all... it's a win/lose world... I take it that you're not for capitalism either?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 8:57 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Well, since that is the basis of capitalism... the lifeboat model of jobs... only enough for some, but not enough for all... it's a win/lose world... I take it that you're not for capitalism either? "

Sig, thats not a fair question. Its manipulative, and you know it, too.

So, Im not going to answer that question.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 9:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Sig, thats not a fair question. Its manipulative, and you know it, too.

No, it's not. There's an assumption behind the thought of holding a person down to raise another, and it's an assumption I don't agree with. I thought about the whole... holding one person down to lift up another... and I thought, "Yanno, why can't we ALL be successful??" Why are we competing for jobs, when there's more than enough work to do? Why are we competing for money, when the wealthy create money out of thin air for themselves? Why does one person have to "lose" when another person "wins"? It all goes back to the zero-sum situation in which my job is your unemployment, my raise is your pay cut, my healthcare costs come out of your pocket.

There's no reason it "has" to be this way! There is more than enough work to do. There is more than enough money in the system to sustain a good economy. I think Byte said it best, which went along the lines of "People are standing between us and the means to obtain our necessities." But if you're willing to work, there should be a job available at a liveable wage.

I mean, why the hell do we accept fighting each other over scraps? And that's what this all comes down to, isn't it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 9:59 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Whew. Haven't even read more than two posts since my last one...will be interesting to read the rest. Okay:

Wulf:

Quote:
Im going to say what I'm against, and people will pile on it.

I, too, don't think it was meant to "pile it on", I think it ws meant as a request for further information. I really want to know and try to understand, and I don't have anything like the preconceptions of you that some others do, 'kay? I think Sig has it right, it would better help if I knew what you were against...?

As to PC. I think SOMETIMES it can be overdone, but on the whole, I think there's nothing wrong in phrasing things the way people can HEAR what we say, rather than just turning them off by being blatantly un-PC. What's wrong with that? I heard the old dodge many times where people say righteously "I say what I think"...but more often than not, those saying it were less "righteous" and to be admired than they were selfish and confrontational. There's nothing wrong with self-control or self-editing if I really want to engage others.

And PC has its purposes; there are things in the world that need changing, and we're a verbal species; to help change some of those things, I think it's a good idea to make some effort not to offend everyone...like the "N" word. That's PC; do you really think it's righteous to use it whenever one feels like it?

Mind you, I'm DEFINITELY saying that being overly PC is as "unrighteous" as the opposite, don't get me wrong! It's childish and silly. I think of it in terms of "politely civil" rather than "politically correct"--the latter has too many visceral implications to me, and if I make the choice to be the former, I know it's out of respect and the desire to actually communicate. Being "politically correct" for the sake of doing so is as ridiculous to me as deliberately NOT being "politely civil". Again, for me it's one of the methods of improving my method of debating/discussing. JMHO

And I see Sig made a really valid point about PC

Quote:
made an EXTENSIVE study of which words can be used in a sentence to "prime" you to react in a particular way to a key phrase?

Yes, visceral vocabulary is VERY much used (by both sides, to be fair, but more recently by the right) to goad people and manipulate them. DO NOT kid yourself, Sig, the left uses it too...it's more obvious right now because of what's going on, but to say the left never thought of the idea made me laugh out loud. Both sides--ALL sides, everywhere, have learned to use buzz words to manipulate. Commercials are a wonderful example, albeit a less dangerous one.

Rue:

Quote:
Why are you still here ?

Trying to be objective, I call foul. Well, partly foul anyway. You snark at him, he snarks at you, it's your pattern. Snarking about your physical pain is TOTALLY rude, I grant you, but I don't think it deserves

Quote:
either you're here to learn how to incite, or you're here to troll. Either way, you have no business on a discussion board.

At the same time, I definitely empathize with your reacting the way you did. Unlike Byte, I would have said "civil", "decent", "fair", maybe, rather than "socially acceptable". Wulf, what you said was just plain WRONG, how about that? And what you said back was pretty much equally wrong, to ME, Rue. Hey, I'm entitled to be an equal-opportunity pissante, everyone else is now and again here, yes?

I definitely call foul on you, Mike:

Quote:
don't you have a Klan rally to lead?

That's every bit as wrong as what he said, period. I'm aware you are convinced Wulf is a racist--maybe he is, but I haven't seen it that much--but it always disappoints me, 'cuz I agree with you more than anyone else here, and I respect your ability to communicate. Shame...forty lashes with a wet noodle, so THERE!

Wow, Frem; is that YOU?!?!

Wow. Wow. Wow. I'm at a loss for words (for me, that's saying something)! Took me a while to get past thinking of you as some kind of butch female (the handle and anime had me for a long time, as well as your championing of kids), but damn... damn... damn. Not sure what to say. Uh...you're bigger than I pictured...not surprising, actually. "Neater"? Not right, but close...how about you can look quite "natty" when you choose to...would I be correct in guessing that's not how you look most of the time? If it IS...double wow.

DT:

Quote:
"War in Afghanistan" is too neutral. Nik, got a better name for it?

I dunno, I thought "Nation Building" was working pretty good for 'em.

DMAAN: Yeah, I caught it. Think I know what he meant, tho', and it wasn't what you read. I think he meant he's all for equality, but in reality there is no such thing. Wulf? --oops, I see Byte got it better than I did... --oops, again, I see Wulf agreed with Byte, AND that my first response (which I deleted in favor of what I wrote) was even righter: that he's in favor of equality, but not of "forced" equality...fake equality if you will, like affirmative action...? And single payer, maybe?

Okay, one thing: Wulf, if you feel like people are "piling it on", you need to bear in mind that you started this thread with "some choose to call me racist". That kinda says the thread is about you, so while some of it IS unfair, IMO, at the same time, you began the topic, yes?

So please continue, I for one really want to understand better. If you would...

(and one silly comment that I've made before; I LOVE it that you guys call me "Nik"...as I said, only one person ever has, and it really makes me feel warm all over when you do. There, that's my share of "soppy" for the day...more sermons probably coming, tho'...

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 10:56 AM

Quote:
I dunno, I thought "Nation Building" was working pretty good for 'em

other direction me was thinking. How about "Nation Demolition"?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 11:26 AM

BYTEMITE

I think that may not actually be Frem, Niki. I've seen that picture before elsewhere.

Hehe, but even though everyone here's cool, we still gotta be CAREFUL, y'know?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 11:43 AM

Someone is a govt. mole

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 2:35 PM

Yeah, that's actually me - but I SOOOOOO cheated on that one.

Firstly that's a REAL small entertainment center behind me, and secondly I used the old hitler-cam trick of having the photographer kneel to make me look bigger, cause I do happen to be quite short.
(notice no floor in the picture angle neither, yes ?)
There's also light class-II armor underneath that, which adds a little bulk.

And nah, I don't look like that all the time, that's "court dress" for when I need to be somewhere that a slick appearance will remove suspicion, the courthouse, bastions of local government up in Lansing, or at the airport, for example - nice shoes and a briefcase, and poof, you're all but invisible.

My whole gig on site is based around something I call effective invisibility, a trick I really cottoned to when driving a cab, as I could circle the same block six times and no one would even notice - I had a dedicated channel to the local cops on the radio for when predators on house arrest or parole/probation would go violating it by scoping out playgrounds or nearby schools and whatnot.

The key is being part of the scenery, you see - since I don't really have any truly distinguishing features other than a slight limp on a good day, so by becoming "background noise" you are seen, but never noticed.

I got a couple brown jumpsuits, which in combination with a package and clipboard, or a janitorial cart, make you invisible in an office building, a standard newsie outfit which is slightly outdated cause I haven't used it in a while, a couple basic store clerk aprons in various colors, hard hat and safety vest, all that kinda thing - you see ?
(and of COURSE a full security gaurds rig, complete with Detex-Newman clock)

Funny if someone else has been using the picture, hell, that's just righteous, the more obfuscation and uncertainty the better!
I always was something of a snappy dresser, and a cynic, hell I was practially born that way!

Mostly, though, I look like nobody at all, this is me workin on the dollhouse I built for that kid, which is about as clear a shot as I am willing to post, honestly.

As for caution, having passed the torch into capable hands and knowing that mosta the folk who'd ever make an ISSUE of the stuff I've done are either in the ground or powerless to act on it anymore is quite liberating, meh.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 3:15 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"You snark at him, he snarks at you ..."

Except you got it backwards.

I don't start till he does. And I reserve the right to snark back.

Which I think is fair. (Don't you ?)

BTW - my comment on Wulf not belonging on a discussion board had nothing to do with his snark - it had to do with the fact that he refused to discuss anything, with anyone. And that was my actual cold assessment of him. He claims to be here to learn how to discuss, and then what does he do ? He bails on ANY kind of discussion at all, b/c, he says, he doesn't want to GASP ! answer questions, or OHMYGODOHMYGODOHMYGOD ! explain what he means. In other words, he refuses to do the thing he says he is here to do, on a board devoted to that very thing.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 3:22 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"And PC has its purposes ..."

Yes, it does. It keep people from using demeaning terms

- look at those niggers ! - what a bunch of juicy cunts !

and stereotypes

- well they're all just lazy parasites

and by disapproving of hate-based speech, hopefully not routinely reinforcing prejudices in society.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 5:14 PM

Victorian do it yourself dollhouse. The only way to go.

Sorry, IMHO: PC is worse than useless. It doesn't stop anyone from saying "well they're all just lazy parasites" about christians, only about blacks. People need to think fairly, not talk fairly. It does no good at all to have a society thinking evil and saying good, that's just a society of people lying all the time. PC has done an excellent job of creating that, and has not in the least detered attitudes towards latinos and muslims, to the point where Obama is voicing these opinions as President of the United States. I'm sorry man, that's not cool. It's not a step up from the old attitudes. It might be a step down.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 5:22 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"People need to think fairly, not talk fairly."

If people were to think fairly there would be no hateful speech at all then. B/c how could you say 'they're just a bunch of ...' when 'they' are composed of many different people, individually doing many different things for many different reasons ...

Racism, or any other hate-based-ism, is about applying negative caricatures to groups of people. How can one fairly say 'they' are 'all' just 'entitled' - when any one of these words is demonstrably untrue ?

BTW - yes, that makes Wulf a racist, though calling him that is far too limited in scope, since he hates many different groups he defines according to negative stereotype.

***************************************************************

ETA: anyway, I have family waiting for me, so have a good night and weekend !

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 5:53 PM

Rue,

I guess we're really agreed on this one. Would you concur that there are also people within the left who do the same sort of mental process when talking about christians, ie., the criticisms are group-oriented with an assumption that christians, or a subset there of, termed "new christians" or something like that, are targeted with associated negative stereotypes?

I think it's a society wide attitude problem, not one with specific perps and victims...

I agree with you on Wulf, it's not that he's anti-black, it's that he groups people, and he associates actions with groups of people.

To take the example of Hyde Park, which had a very nasty crime rate, an analysis of that would by necessity have to be very complex.

It would be wildly inaccurate to paint Barack Obama's rise to power as the ascent from the depths of a crime ridden black neighborhood to the presidency as some sort of one in a million miracle.

The Obama's both rose through the mainstream power structure of corporate, intellectual, community an political structure of the legitimate above board society of a powerful and influential and economically successful community of Hyde Park and took a small series of steps to the presidency. During that time, they had to endure chaos and crime in their neighborhood, including gang wars and drug trafficking, which most certainly made them very nervous, esp. raising two young girl. It makes the people I know who still live there very nervous as well, I know three families in Hyde Park very well, and several others less so, and the irony of such a successful community simultaneously having such endemic problems has been an intermittent paradox, but not one which can be pinned down in a simple generalization, if for no other reason than that any such analysis would in no way lead you to a short serious of logical steps to say that Barack Hussein Obama would be president of the United States in 2008, which I did say myself when he was not yet a Senator from Illinois, and I didn't say it because it was a random guess. I thought it was a pretty safe bet.

In retrospect I should have gone to work for him then. But then again, I've made so many "would have made me a fortune" stock calls, I just have an inability to use my precognition, or to convince others that things I see are actually going to happen.

Oh, I'm not buying stock at the moment ;) <-- I could be wrong...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 25, 2009 8:22 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"You snark at him, he snarks at you ..."

Except you got it backwards.

I don't start till he does. And I reserve the right to snark back.

Which I think is fair - don't you ?

No. Well, maybe if you're 12? I mean sure, you have the "right" to do a whole lot of things, doesn't mean it's necessarily a great idea to do 'em, does it? Particularly when the only justification you offer is "he started it!"

I'm with you up to, say, the third go 'round: you make your eloquent point, he evades you; you repeat your eloquent point noting that he evaded you, he evades you again; so you lay it out for any bistanders that missed the innitial confrontation and, y'know, you win.

But after the 10th, 20th, umpteenth iteration of this "I'm right and you're a coward" gambit (a recipe not for understanding, but purely for humiliation), I'm not even clocking the other guy any more, I'm wondering about Rue's health, mental and physical. And because I think very highly of you, I tend to wonder then about human kind, and why we obsess over battles we will never win, battles that don't even matter.

Snark is hardly a right to be defended. It's nothing to be proud of. It's a human common-place, like laws and fear and fattening food. Where you find humans, you will find snark. Snark, like booze and cussedness, will never be successfully outlawed.

I count this as about my third go 'round with this particular gambit of mine.

If it don't make any difference to you, Rue, at this point, I'll drop it.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 5:53 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"But after the 10th, 20th, umpteenth iteration of this "I'm right and you're a coward" gambit ..."

HK - if you're going to criticize me, at least make it for something that really happened. And, BTW - I noticed that you completely ignored Wulf's threat to 'smack me', which he made for no other reason than I asked a simple, impersonal topical question.

Also - I invite you to read JUST my posts. They are very short, and I don't post often. It will take you 2 minutes, tops. Then come back and point out to me where I was doing ANYTHING but responding in kind, and often, not even doing that.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 6:46 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think we're ALL aware that Wulf bails when the questions get too hot. His answers are either silence, or "That's a trick question" (heh!), or "I don't have to explain myself to you." (HEH!)

Rappy had very much the same MO. My view of Rappy is that he WAS here to incite. He preached Limbaugh morning, noon, and night, and- after a couple of years of finding no takers- he left. He would have left with or without flamewars, I believe. In fact, I think the BEST response to trolling, snark, and other peeps trying to practice one-way communication is ... still.... SILENCE. Pretty much the same we way to respond to Whozit. (PN is another matter altogether.)

But I don't get the same impression from Wulf. I think he's heartfelt, AND I think he's listening. But its a lot to take in, and people sometimes needs breathing space to think. Sniping at someone while they're thinking disturbs their thought and makes them defensive. Despite the fact that I'm a serious practitioner of snark (It comes to me as naturally as breathing), I REALLY don't think it does any good.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 7:35 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I think we're ALL aware that Wulf bails ..."

He does more than bail - he theatens.

***************************************************************

ETA: "I think he's heartfelt, AND I think he's listening."

Now, here's where if I make ANY kind of negative, if honest, observation about Wulf I'll be accused of something or other. But I think he has issues - serious ones. Serious enough to openly threaten someone who had the gall to merely ask a topical question. That the threat is an virtual (therefore empty) one doesn't negate the fact that he felt threatened enough to make it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 7:46 AM

*sigh*

And you wonder why folks get annoyed with you as well ?

Sorry, but "agree with me or be verbally abused" is about as piss poor a way to get your concepts across the aisle as there is, and smacks of a lack of tolerance which is almost as bad in it's own way as the intolerance you happen to be cussing.

You do NOT teach folk a better way by slapping them upside the head, all you'll accomplish is to make enemies, and push them into justifying the very beliefs you're trying to deconstruct by your own conduct.

And yes, sometimes it DOES mean biting your tongue when you'd really like to snap at them for some boneheaded thing they said or did, cause that stuff is petty in comparison to the greater issues, and will go away all on it's own without further effort if you DO manage to convince them to take a higher road - but focusing on that to the exclusion of the issue at hand is just patently ridiculous.

And as a coda to that little capsule lecture...

How you ever gonna teach someone else tolerance and patience when you do not set an example with your own behavior ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 7:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Rue, I get ya. Basically, you're saying that Wulf is held to a lower standard. That's 100% true.

ETA: We also hold PN and Whozit to lower standards. In fact, we make exceptions for a LOT of people, including Frem (who can be pretty abusive at times), and Kwicko (who comes back with some pretty funny snark most times!)

I get it. I see that while Frem preaches patience, he only saves his patience for some.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 7:58 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"agree with me or be verbally abused"

Frem, really, I'm tired of people piling on the bullsh*t. I don't abuse people b/c they disagree - I merely respond to abuse when it is given. Period.

And BTW, you TOO blew by Wulf's overt threat. Why is that ?

And I'm tired of your double standard. You excuse Wulf, you excuse Kwicko, but hold me to a different standard. Niki2 does the same. Show me where Wulf has EVER responded topically to me. Show me where he has ever done anything BUT snark at me. But somehow I am at fault for ALL the snark on this board ? Explain to me how I am at fault for all of this --- OK ?

BTW - I've had many heartfelt yet civil disagreements with many people here. But I guess that doesn't count in your book. B/c you are FAR too invested in covering for Wulf.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 8:59 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I have often wondered if there was a psychological condition related to knowledge.

As in, the more knowledge you have, the less patience you have with ignorance.

This would explain why some of the most learned amongst us are so quick to become exasperated with the most ignorant amongst us.

And if so, I apologize for trying y'alls patience. :-)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 9:35 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

AnthonyT

I don't think anyone could be very impatient with you, and, if at all, not for very long.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 10:09 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Thanks Rue,

And I want you all to know, Rue and Frem and all our other big brains who are too numerous to count...

I completely respect and am in awe of you lot of learned souls, even when I'm in disagreement with you. It takes a lot of hard learning and living to get as wise as you all have become.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 10:41 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"It takes a lot of hard learning and living ..."

You mean I've accumulated more than grey hair and pain ? WOOO HOOOO !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 12:49 PM

Quote:

And I'm tired of your double standard. You excuse Wulf, you excuse Kwicko, but hold me to a different standard.

Good point.

I get away with a lot because I'm a known smart-ass. I use that to my advantage, ease up sideways to someone and then walk 'em into a wall, as it were. And yes, sometimes I *DO* absolutely go off on people and respond in kind - something I remember Signy being VERY taken to task for when she did the same.

I don't know if it's because Rue and Signy are taken more seriously because they tend to BE more serious, or if it's something else. They both snark, but Rue especially tends to get "brought up on charges" when she commits the crime of "responding in kind" to people who will say some pretty despicable things to her before she retaliates.

Should we all be *above* any of that kind of behavior? Sure we should... but very damned few of us actually ARE. And I definitely "include myself out" when I say "us" on that one!

Mike

Old friend charity
Cruel twisted smile
And the smile signals emptiness
For me
Starless and Bible black

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 2:03 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Rue,

I guess we're really agreed on this one. Would you concur that there are also people within the left who do the same sort of mental process when talking about christians, ie., the criticisms are group-oriented with an assumption that christians, or a subset there of, termed "new christians" or something like that, are targeted with associated negative stereotypes?

I think it's a society wide attitude problem, not one with specific perps and victims...

I'm not sure that both are equal - simply because being Christian is about belief, being *insert race or ethnicity* is not something you have a choice about.

That being said - it's still not accurate to lump all christians together, any more than it is to lump all muslims together. Both have their nutbag radical element - which I might add at this current point of time, you are more like to see radical muslims acting out with extreme violence than radical christians, but let's not forgot the whole burning at the stake, inquisition and other less glorious times in christianity's history.

Then again, people like Richard Dawkins are critical of all christians because he's opposed to their belief system per se. It makes no difference to him whether they are radical or liberal, they are wrong (in his view). I'm not sure whether anyone would call him a bigot or not,

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 3:24 PM

MD,

Quote:
Then again, people like Richard Dawkins are critical of all christians because he's opposed to their belief system per se. It makes no difference to him whether they are radical or liberal, they are wrong (in his view). I'm not sure whether anyone would call him a bigot or not,

Lol. true. I'll have to ask him about that. He's a close friend of a very close friend of mine, and I'm likely to see him next time i'm over there.

Quote:
That being said - it's still not accurate to lump all christians together, any more than it is to lump all muslims together. Both have their nutbag radical element - which I might add at this current point of time, you are more like to see radical muslims acting out with extreme violence than radical christians, but let's not forgot the whole burning at the stake, inquisition and other less glorious times in christianity's history.

All people who group themselves into an identity are easily manipulated into group action. I'm not sure that muslims are more prone to violence than christians. Muslims are being bombed at the moment, it tends to lead to violent reactions. If you recall when christians were bombed in the 90s, they reacted violently. Socialists do the same thing, I'm not sure, they might be a religion.[/snark]

Warning, Rant on "racism": definitions and applications: (in serious need of an edit)

I think it's the same. "Racism" lost its original meaning a long time ago. "Islam" has been mentioned probably a few thousand times on this forum as a target of racism, and easily as many mentions for "jews" who are not a race (my ancestors on my father's side were jewish, but not semites, yet if someone were to criticize them, they would be called "anti-semitic" semite is a race. These people were ethnic germans who converted in the early 1800s, and then killed at Treblinka.) "Latinos" are a race, like everyone else, but the race is not "Latino" that's a culture. Most of these people are at least part Native American, a large number of them are full blooded native american, some are African-American, and a fair number are purely Caucasian, but to discriminate against the group is univerally called "racism" and not "culturism" or "languagism" or "citizenshipism."

And rightly so.

Remember the real origin of the term, "The doctrine of racism" which is a turn of the century philosophy that upholds that there is such a thing as a "national character" and attributes can be associated with people of a "race," such as "the french race" or "the english race."

Genetically, this is absurd. The French, like the Brits, are a mix of Germanic, Celtic and Roman ethnic groups with the odd Scythian or Viking thrown in for good measure. (re: my earlier refernce to Jefferson being a genetic Iranian: I meant just that. His ancestors were from England. There is a small Scythian population in England and has been since they were hired as mercenaries to defend a collapsing roman empire, which made it into a recent film of otherwise dubious historical accuracy, but that much seems true, a long with a few scattered other details about the movie.)

So what is the French race? It's a culture, and a rough association. It has a language, typically a religion, and a really very broad genetic base.

What is black? is a much deeper question. I think people could go into that for a very long time. No doubt that "racism" as a term became applied to anti-black bigotry after WWI, the exact date I don't know but could look up. It was undoubtedly used to refer to "the jewish question" during WWII and after. If "black" is just a skin color, why does it not apply to south asians? Does it apply to the Malagasy? They're Subsaharan Africans, but they're genetically austronesian. If so, does it apply to other austronesians?

A lot of people here said during the last election "Obama's not black" if they mean "Obama is not a member of the negroid genetic group, they yes, they are correct, he's not a member of ther niger-congo cultural/ethnic group either.

So, sure, replace the word "racism" with "bigotry" if it suits your fancy, but remember, the term "race" has never really had any genetic significance, from its inception to its present day use. If someone is "racist" against Obama because they're "anti-black" then what are they, besides stupid? I mean, if such a person were to also be anti-hindu/pakistani, then it could be just a color thing. If they're not, maybe they're anti-africa, and also hate arabs and austronesians, and it's "continentalism."

But at least we call all agree that they are bigots.

Oh, and any latino could choose to be some other ethnic group by identifying themselves as white, black, or native american, and many do. They're still the second main "racism" target after "muslims" which is no kind of definition at all outside of religious. I don't really see a difference between this and the "anti-christian" thing.

And even if individuals can change groups, this isn't about hating individuals, it's about hating groups. Christians aren't a political action committee, they're largely born christian, or christian culture, and likely to have christian children, etc.

Quote:
I'm not sure that both are equal - simply because being Christian is about belief, being *insert race or ethnicity* is not something you have a choice about.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 3:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

That being said - it's still not accurate to lump all christians together, any more than it is to lump all muslims together. Both have their nutbag radical element - which I might add at this current point of time, you are more like to see radical muslims acting out with extreme violence than radical christians, but let's not forgot the whole burning at the stake, inquisition and other less glorious times in christianity's history.

At this point in time, there are radical "christians" murdering doctors in the U.S. who are performing their job in a legal and moral fashion, and others - some of them on this board - who celebrate those murders, which is as bad as Palestinians dancing in the streets on 9/11. I wouldn't say radical Islam is currently crazier than fundamentalist christian zealotry; I'd say they're on an equal lack of footing.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 4:06 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Dreamtrove: Well I was born into a Christian faith and chose not to follow - whereas if I'd been born 'black' in all the various meanings that might have re ethnicity and race, then I really have no choice. It's not like I can persuade them at a KKK rally where I'm about to hung up - that I've chosen not be a part of that group. Although it's not quite the same with Jewish people, who may identify/or be identified as Jewish culturally or ethnically and not follow any particular doctrine. Jewish people for all intents and purposes have been considered a race - although I agree that it's not accurate. I'm not particularly hung up on the semantics, although i guess at times they might be important.

I do believe that the majority of anti Christian sentiment that I have observed relates to beliefs and actions of particular groups within that category - particularly when christians try to influence government policy based on their beliefs. So I don't see that sort of criticism as racist/bigotist? any more than I would say critcism of Israeli policy is anti-zionist.

It's different than making sweeping negative generalisations about a racial/ethnic/religious group. ie all African Americans are lazy, all Jews are stingy, all Muslims are terrorists, all Christians are idiots.

Re; Dawkins - how interesting to meet him. I wonder how he is in real life - his media persona is quite unpleasant.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 4:16 PM

Sorry Siggy, I call bullshit, I've been pretty damn patient, and I am getting a bit pissed at Rue playing the poor little me game when she herself has engaged in conduct every bit as unbecoming in previous discussions, which I was extremely patient with before blowing my top when it became undeniably clear she was doing the very thing she accused others of.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=33401

And now wants to play snow-white while bashing someone else for personal reasons while lying about it - she DOES verbally abuse people because they disagree, cause every time I have called her up short on enabling abusive behavior she's done it to me, and often as not I did bite my tongue about it, but not always, hell no.

As for some of Wulfs mouth, hell, some of Mikeys, and not at all restricted to them, generally if someone's just talkin shit it ain't my policy to give it the time of day unless it's specifically over the top - otherwise you wind up in the same he-said-she-said bullshit tit-for-tat gamery that just completely wrecks the hell out of discussion here, in fact, has wrecked any kind of discussion in this thread in part due to your constant baiting and shot-taking, which if you wanna talk about holding to standards, is not in any way excused by Wulfs trash talking, just as he cannot (at least with me) use your petty sniping as excuse for the trash talking.

Frankly, you sound like a pair of toddlers, and I woulda THOUGHT that if someone was gonna be an adult about it, it oughta be y'all as you know better - ain't nobody forcing you discuss a damn thing with the guy, especially when you get blinded by your own personal issues and frustrated with conduct I happen to be TRYING to encourage him to rise above, while you sit there and bait it, how does this help matters ?

Do you REALLY think I've not been sorely, sorely tempted to do the verbal equivalent of bonkin the guys head into a wall screaming "LEARN, YOU FOOL, LEARN!" myself - you know me too well to even think for a moment that I haven't.

Aw hell with it, go right on ahead then, make enemies instead of allies, scream at and abuse folk who don't agree with you, demand respect and tolerance while offering none, all the while decrying "others" for it, cause I can see that vested in those opinions you ain't gonna pay a damned bit of attention to what I say cause it conflicts with your created reality.

Golly gee, where have I seen THAT dynamic before ?

And folks wonder why imma damn Anarchist...

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 4:20 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

At this point in time, there are radical "christians" murdering doctors in the U.S. who are performing their job in a legal and moral fashion, and others - some of them on this board - who celebrate those murders, which is as bad as Palestinians dancing in the streets on 9/11. I wouldn't say radical Islam is currently crazier than fundamentalist christian zealotry; I'd say they're on an equal lack of footing.

Sorry, I really have to disagree. Although there are instances of radical Christian extremism at this point in time it's not as pervasive as Muslim extremism. However I would concede that extremist Christian views certainly held far too much political clout during the Bush era, and still hold a lot of power in the US and I'd say there was the potential for it get worse. However, when you consider the number dead and injured from Islamic terror cells around the world, and the number of places which have extremist governments and sharia law, then I think its still quite uneven. At this point in time, mind you, in this point in time. I really see that the Islamic world is experiencing something similar to 15th and 16th Century Christain Europe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 4:39 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Btw.... I didnt bail... I just don't usually check in here over the weekend.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 5:33 PM

Quote:

Frankly, you sound like a pair of toddlers, and I woulda THOUGHT that if someone was gonna be an adult about it, it oughta be y'all as you know better - ain't nobody forcing you discuss a damn thing with the guy, especially when you get blinded by your own personal issues and frustrated with conduct I happen to be TRYING to encourage him to rise above, while you sit there and bait it, how does this help matters ?

Frem:

Well said, and I'll try to keep that in mind. I assume that was aimed at least partially my direction.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 26, 2009 5:49 PM