LGF quiz April 11, 2004 9:33 AM Subscribe
Some users feel that this needs to go, and I agree with them.
even the slightest attempts are shouted down with accusations of racism (cue in matteo).
And you seem to forget how often this so-called criticism of ideas is laced with personal attacks.
posted by y2karl at 9:51 AM on April 11, 2004
And you seem to forget how often this so-called criticism of ideas is laced with personal attacks.
posted by y2karl at 9:51 AM on April 11, 2004
I'm sure it was the mere mention of Nazis that got you riled, Krrrlson, but I think you ought to know a little bit about the history between Litte Green Footballs and MetaFilter. When Matt says "Another pissing content" he's referring to a long standing hate-hate relationship between a hefty number of members on the two sites. This has errupted in the past into "fuck you" after "fuck you" on either side, and escalated past the point of being funny. Anything that baits LGF overtly is frowned upon by the Matt now, which is probably a good call, as none of us really needs the headache.
I just didn't want you to misunderstand this one. Your user number is pretty high and I wasn't sure if you were around for all that. If Matt wants to speak up and correct me on this, and proclaim that any posts mentioning Nazis will be deleted, I'm happy to be corrected.
posted by scarabic at 9:53 AM on April 11, 2004
I just didn't want you to misunderstand this one. Your user number is pretty high and I wasn't sure if you were around for all that. If Matt wants to speak up and correct me on this, and proclaim that any posts mentioning Nazis will be deleted, I'm happy to be corrected.
posted by scarabic at 9:53 AM on April 11, 2004
It wasn't about Nazis at all, scarabic. Why, if we were to delete every Godwin thread... :)
I didn't know about the longstanding history, but the thread was inappropriate in its own right.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:57 AM on April 11, 2004
I didn't know about the longstanding history, but the thread was inappropriate in its own right.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:57 AM on April 11, 2004
That thread was a perfect example of how when anyone takes a slightly (or not so slightly) differing opinion from the collective that is MetaFilter, they are immediately attacked, labeled (troll), name-called, their words get twisted and taken out of context (and now ultimately deleted).
To say things like "extremist Muslims hate us all" is an absolutely stupid generalisation of opinions, and nothing more than a classic bigoted attempt to create an us vs. them situation.
C'mon. I think it's a pretty safe generalization, at least for the purpose of a "conversation" such as this one. I suppose you could find one or two extremists that DON'T hate us all. But it would be stupid to even look. I can't even believe that you would want to make an argument against bigotry and generalization in defense of Islamic extremists. They wouldn't be extremists is they didn't hate us... that's the point.
Which ones, exactly? A tiny minority, perhaps, although that's more linked to their political views than to the fact that they are Muslims. All of them, no.
A muslim's politcial views? Isn't that rather redundant? If an Islamic extremist is more noted for his political views, and not for being Muslim, then we wouldn't refer to him as an Islamic extremist. Islamic Law IS their political view.
posted by Witty at 9:59 AM on April 11, 2004
To say things like "extremist Muslims hate us all" is an absolutely stupid generalisation of opinions, and nothing more than a classic bigoted attempt to create an us vs. them situation.
C'mon. I think it's a pretty safe generalization, at least for the purpose of a "conversation" such as this one. I suppose you could find one or two extremists that DON'T hate us all. But it would be stupid to even look. I can't even believe that you would want to make an argument against bigotry and generalization in defense of Islamic extremists. They wouldn't be extremists is they didn't hate us... that's the point.
Which ones, exactly? A tiny minority, perhaps, although that's more linked to their political views than to the fact that they are Muslims. All of them, no.
A muslim's politcial views? Isn't that rather redundant? If an Islamic extremist is more noted for his political views, and not for being Muslim, then we wouldn't refer to him as an Islamic extremist. Islamic Law IS their political view.
posted by Witty at 9:59 AM on April 11, 2004
A muslim's politcial views? Isn't that rather redundant?
Foul.
posted by NortonDC at 10:01 AM on April 11, 2004
Foul.
posted by NortonDC at 10:01 AM on April 11, 2004
Alright, kids. The thread was deleted. Don't make the MeTa get deleted too.
posted by rafter at 10:03 AM on April 11, 2004
posted by rafter at 10:03 AM on April 11, 2004
karl, will you be my very own minstrel? I want to keep hearing the sweet sound of your voice everywhere I go.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:06 AM on April 11, 2004
posted by Krrrlson at 10:06 AM on April 11, 2004
So what was inappropriate about it, Krrrlson? If you had no memory of the past fueds, something content-wise must have bothered you.
posted by scarabic at 10:07 AM on April 11, 2004
posted by scarabic at 10:07 AM on April 11, 2004
Something concept-wise bothered me. A link to an "LGF is Hitler" is stupid, just as a "DailyKos is Stalin" link. It encourages senseless bashing of other people with no real argumentative content, and that was certainly showing in the subsequent comments.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:21 AM on April 11, 2004
posted by Krrrlson at 10:21 AM on April 11, 2004
karl, will you be my very own minstrel?
It's sad to note that only a site frequented by bigots dares to touch upon the inexplicably "taboo" subject of Muslim extremists and fundamentalists, at a time when anywhere else, even the slightest attempts attempts are shouted down with accusations of racism (cue in matteo).
Only when you put words in people's mouths and make gratuitous slurs.
Fish in a barrel, a new course served nearly daily of late, on that, alas.
Why destroy your own point by naming names, getting personal with someone who never made a comment in the thread in question in the first place?
posted by y2karl at 11:02 AM on April 11, 2004
It's sad to note that only a site frequented by bigots dares to touch upon the inexplicably "taboo" subject of Muslim extremists and fundamentalists, at a time when anywhere else, even the slightest attempts attempts are shouted down with accusations of racism (cue in matteo).
Only when you put words in people's mouths and make gratuitous slurs.
Fish in a barrel, a new course served nearly daily of late, on that, alas.
Why destroy your own point by naming names, getting personal with someone who never made a comment in the thread in question in the first place?
posted by y2karl at 11:02 AM on April 11, 2004
i had dinner night before last with an american student whose family was from pakistan. his dad is mulim and votes republican. i made some comment about him being the only republican voting muslim in america and then felt very stupid.
so it goes.
posted by andrew cooke at 11:07 AM on April 11, 2004
so it goes.
posted by andrew cooke at 11:07 AM on April 11, 2004
The thread got deleted? Meh.
Witty: since you're responding to my post, I might as well say that it's entirely redundant to state "extremist Muslims hate us all" if what's meant by "extremist" is "the ones that hate us all". I imagine the same could be said of "extremist" Christians, or "extremist" people named Robert. The point is that isn't most definition of extremist -- I take it to mean something akin to "fundamentalist" or "devout", and I wouldn't say that all such Muslims hate us (whatever that means, and whoever "us" is). It's definitely an attempt to create an us vs. them situation just by the way the argument is framed, and most of the quotes from LGF were worryingly dehumanising, which at least partially justifies the Nazi comparison.
I hardly see how speaking out against racism is a pissing match, but whatever, I guess. Not my blog.
posted by reklaw at 11:42 AM on April 11, 2004
Witty: since you're responding to my post, I might as well say that it's entirely redundant to state "extremist Muslims hate us all" if what's meant by "extremist" is "the ones that hate us all". I imagine the same could be said of "extremist" Christians, or "extremist" people named Robert. The point is that isn't most definition of extremist -- I take it to mean something akin to "fundamentalist" or "devout", and I wouldn't say that all such Muslims hate us (whatever that means, and whoever "us" is). It's definitely an attempt to create an us vs. them situation just by the way the argument is framed, and most of the quotes from LGF were worryingly dehumanising, which at least partially justifies the Nazi comparison.
I hardly see how speaking out against racism is a pissing match, but whatever, I guess. Not my blog.
posted by reklaw at 11:42 AM on April 11, 2004
One comment on this bit: only a site frequented by bigots dares to touch upon the inexplicably "taboo" subject of Muslim extremists
Only a site frequented by bigots "dares" to touch on a subject that is belabored every day by all the mass media and every op-ed page in America, every single frickin' day? If MeFites dump on the practice of blaming Muslim extremists it's because it's such a handy label of simplification. By conflating "muslim extremists" with "terrorists", it's rapidly becoming a code word for "people it's okay to kill". The problems with this are too many to enumerate in this space; and one would hope they'd be self-evident, but I'll start with these:
Only a site frequented by bigots "dares" to touch on a subject that is belabored every day by all the mass media and every op-ed page in America, every single frickin' day? If MeFites dump on the practice of blaming Muslim extremists it's because it's such a handy label of simplification. By conflating "muslim extremists" with "terrorists", it's rapidly becoming a code word for "people it's okay to kill". The problems with this are too many to enumerate in this space; and one would hope they'd be self-evident, but I'll start with these:
- It makes it easier to dehumanize Muslims as a whole -- and I honestly believe that that is its intent;
- It conveniently deflects any discussions of the issues. There are no issues, they're just "Muslim extremists" and they hate us. So for example, if you commit a crime against a muslim extremist, and he gets back at you for it, he didn't really have a cause because he's a Muslim extremist, and anything he does is because he "hates us".
I hardly see how speaking out against racism is a pissing match
Emphatic agreement. The culture of hate wins when any suggestion that such ideas are poisonous is cast as either some sort of personality conflict or a mere difference in political perspective.
posted by jjg at 12:01 PM on April 11, 2004
Emphatic agreement. The culture of hate wins when any suggestion that such ideas are poisonous is cast as either some sort of personality conflict or a mere difference in political perspective.
posted by jjg at 12:01 PM on April 11, 2004
there's a campaign on to have their Amazon and Paypal associations removed, for violating the Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs) which ban racial or other hate sites. More info here.
posted by amberglow at 12:03 PM on April 11, 2004
posted by amberglow at 12:03 PM on April 11, 2004
I regret yet am not surprised that Matt walked away from this fight. But if you want a really unpopular opinion, here it is:
These "islamic extremists" are STRAW MEN. They are thoroughly powerless to "destroy our way of life" and will continue to be so as long as we don't move 51% of our businesses into buildings as tall and badly-built as the Twin Towers and move the American Capital from Washington D.C. to a suburb of Jerusalem. And the term "Islamo-fascist" is vague enough to apply to the Taliban, Iran's Mullahs, the Royal Family of Sahd and maybe that tin-horn dictator who promoted himself as "the New Saladin" that Bush incredulously designated the worst threat in the region. We can far more surely break the power of fundamentalist megalomaniacs in the rest of the world by not emulating them by 'use of force', but to relentlessly export the very best of our 'decadent culture' and watch it virally spread to every possible human being (including some that others define as "vermin") who wishes to live better. We have so many better things to do than to promote a small cult as a threat in any way comparable to the Nazis or the U.S.S.R.
posted by wendell at 12:23 PM on April 11, 2004 [1 favorite]
These "islamic extremists" are STRAW MEN. They are thoroughly powerless to "destroy our way of life" and will continue to be so as long as we don't move 51% of our businesses into buildings as tall and badly-built as the Twin Towers and move the American Capital from Washington D.C. to a suburb of Jerusalem. And the term "Islamo-fascist" is vague enough to apply to the Taliban, Iran's Mullahs, the Royal Family of Sahd and maybe that tin-horn dictator who promoted himself as "the New Saladin" that Bush incredulously designated the worst threat in the region. We can far more surely break the power of fundamentalist megalomaniacs in the rest of the world by not emulating them by 'use of force', but to relentlessly export the very best of our 'decadent culture' and watch it virally spread to every possible human being (including some that others define as "vermin") who wishes to live better. We have so many better things to do than to promote a small cult as a threat in any way comparable to the Nazis or the U.S.S.R.
posted by wendell at 12:23 PM on April 11, 2004 [1 favorite]
The post did need to be deleted, but not for the reasons stated in the thread at LGF - they are claiming that the FPP included a photoshopped pic of charles johnson as eva braun.
The post was bad enough, but as i recall, mefi code does not allow such a post, right?
I mean, I can't remember that ever happening here.
posted by dash_slot- at 12:32 PM on April 11, 2004
The post was bad enough, but as i recall, mefi code does not allow such a post, right?
I mean, I can't remember that ever happening here.
posted by dash_slot- at 12:32 PM on April 11, 2004
Only when you put words in people's mouths
Something you've never, ever done. Ever.
Why destroy your own point by naming names, getting personal with someone who never made a comment in the thread in question in the first place?
I suggest you add a little more useless paranoia, a joke about "camel-fuckers" and recycle it in some Arab-hating warblog -- it'll be a big hit, I guess.
Only a site frequented by bigots "dares" to touch on a subject that is belabored every day by all the mass media and every op-ed page in America, every single frickin' day?
Of course the international media hasn't a single piece in the other extreme, not one, oh no. But let's start with MeFi, where I hear of Bush/Sharon atrocities practically every day... where's the bias here?
It conveniently deflects any discussions of the issues. There are no issues, they're just "Muslim extremists" and they hate us.
Conversely, the discussion of issues is vastly aided by a comment of the sort linked in this post.
amberglow -- Thank you! You should post that to the front page! Really!
On preview, wendell -- have the Nazis, or the USSR ever managed to conduct a devastating attack on US soil, killing thousands of people? I think you underestimate suicidal fundies just a wee bit.
posted by Krrrlson at 12:33 PM on April 11, 2004
Something you've never, ever done. Ever.
Why destroy your own point by naming names, getting personal with someone who never made a comment in the thread in question in the first place?
I suggest you add a little more useless paranoia, a joke about "camel-fuckers" and recycle it in some Arab-hating warblog -- it'll be a big hit, I guess.
Only a site frequented by bigots "dares" to touch on a subject that is belabored every day by all the mass media and every op-ed page in America, every single frickin' day?
Of course the international media hasn't a single piece in the other extreme, not one, oh no. But let's start with MeFi, where I hear of Bush/Sharon atrocities practically every day... where's the bias here?
It conveniently deflects any discussions of the issues. There are no issues, they're just "Muslim extremists" and they hate us.
Conversely, the discussion of issues is vastly aided by a comment of the sort linked in this post.
amberglow -- Thank you! You should post that to the front page! Really!
On preview, wendell -- have the Nazis, or the USSR ever managed to conduct a devastating attack on US soil, killing thousands of people? I think you underestimate suicidal fundies just a wee bit.
posted by Krrrlson at 12:33 PM on April 11, 2004
(Oh, and consider me off any LGF-specific discussion in this thread as of now. More personal tete-a-tete regarding my character will be addressed only if the attacker is sufficiently creative.)
posted by Krrrlson at 12:42 PM on April 11, 2004
posted by Krrrlson at 12:42 PM on April 11, 2004
amberglow -- Thank you! You should post that to the front page! Really!
"This post was deleted for the following reason: not another pissing match, sheesh."
Likewise, to repeat what I said above: If the first post was deleted (and everyone seems to agree rightly so), how is it that everyone is seeing fit to just continue the discussion here?
posted by rafter at 12:46 PM on April 11, 2004
"This post was deleted for the following reason: not another pissing match, sheesh."
Likewise, to repeat what I said above: If the first post was deleted (and everyone seems to agree rightly so), how is it that everyone is seeing fit to just continue the discussion here?
posted by rafter at 12:46 PM on April 11, 2004
It's not pissing to point out that other people consider it a hate site, and are doing something about it.
posted by amberglow at 1:18 PM on April 11, 2004
posted by amberglow at 1:18 PM on April 11, 2004
amberglow, apologies. I appreciated your link but was merely reminding Krrrlson why it wouldn't make a good FPP (as he suggested). Didn't mean to attack you --
posted by rafter at 1:40 PM on April 11, 2004
posted by rafter at 1:40 PM on April 11, 2004
So, is claiming that this community removes mud ("mudfilter") supposed to be an insult to us?
Help me out here.
posted by NortonDC at 1:55 PM on April 11, 2004
Help me out here.
posted by NortonDC at 1:55 PM on April 11, 2004
matt - the post in question is still on the front page, admittedly with your reason for deletion...
posted by dash_slot- at 2:05 PM on April 11, 2004
posted by dash_slot- at 2:05 PM on April 11, 2004
Eh, just logged on...apologies for the post, didn't realize it would rile so many people, just thought it was interesting what the fellow put together. But nevertheless, the community has spoken (at least it wasn't a double post! =P).
posted by iamck at 2:13 PM on April 11, 2004
posted by iamck at 2:13 PM on April 11, 2004
It's definitely an attempt to create an us vs. them situation just by the way the argument is framed, and most of the quotes from LGF were worryingly dehumanising, which at least partially justifies the Nazi comparison.
Well, it is us vs. them (whether you personally want to be a part of it or not). I'm speaking of those PARTICULAR extremists who take it to the level of terror and violence. If there is some other term you would like everyone to use to describe the PARTICULAR muslims I speak of, please feel free to offer it. Instead, you and others prefer to argue semantics. "You're attempting to dehumanize ALL muslims". Bullshit. One of my best friends is Muslim, born in Tehran.
Until some other extremist group rears it ugly head and starts regularly participating in similar havoc, I'll reserve my "hatred" for those PARTICULAR Islamic extremists who would rather see us all dead.
posted by Witty at 2:47 PM on April 11, 2004
Well, it is us vs. them (whether you personally want to be a part of it or not). I'm speaking of those PARTICULAR extremists who take it to the level of terror and violence. If there is some other term you would like everyone to use to describe the PARTICULAR muslims I speak of, please feel free to offer it. Instead, you and others prefer to argue semantics. "You're attempting to dehumanize ALL muslims". Bullshit. One of my best friends is Muslim, born in Tehran.
Until some other extremist group rears it ugly head and starts regularly participating in similar havoc, I'll reserve my "hatred" for those PARTICULAR Islamic extremists who would rather see us all dead.
posted by Witty at 2:47 PM on April 11, 2004
rafter and amberglow -- Re-tune your sarcasm detectors. Put that on the front page? If anything, I'd delete your post linking to the "campaign" from *this* thread... I don't think this is a place to put a plug for someone's grudge match, *especially* after the FPP was deleted.
posted by Krrrlson at 3:05 PM on April 11, 2004
posted by Krrrlson at 3:05 PM on April 11, 2004
I'm speaking of those PARTICULAR extremists who take it to the level of terror and violence. If there is some other term you would like everyone to use to describe the PARTICULAR muslims I speak of, please feel free to offer it.
"Terrorists" or, if you want, "violent Muslim sects" would suffice. "Extremist Muslims" on its own is far too ambiguous, if you ask me.
Still, I don't think even violent or terroristic Muslims should be described as vermin, just on principle -- humans are always human, no matter what you think of them, and to lose sight of that (as, indeed, they have) leads to all sorts of trouble. I'm also wary of people who attempt to say that such violence is some characteristic of Islam itself (ie. a Muslim "extremist" or fundamentalist is always violent), rather than just of a tiny minority's skewed interpretation of it.
Oh yeah, and I don't think it's good to try and get paypal to remove their donation thingy from LGF. Free speech and all that -- the way to fight it isn't to try and take away its funding (which is just as childish as emailing advertisers on dailykos with "omg kos said he's glad americans died and you have ads with him i'm going to harass you until you remove them"). The way to fight it is to articulate your own arguments against it, and know that reasonable people will be listening to you.
posted by reklaw at 3:38 PM on April 11, 2004
"Terrorists" or, if you want, "violent Muslim sects" would suffice. "Extremist Muslims" on its own is far too ambiguous, if you ask me.
Still, I don't think even violent or terroristic Muslims should be described as vermin, just on principle -- humans are always human, no matter what you think of them, and to lose sight of that (as, indeed, they have) leads to all sorts of trouble. I'm also wary of people who attempt to say that such violence is some characteristic of Islam itself (ie. a Muslim "extremist" or fundamentalist is always violent), rather than just of a tiny minority's skewed interpretation of it.
Oh yeah, and I don't think it's good to try and get paypal to remove their donation thingy from LGF. Free speech and all that -- the way to fight it isn't to try and take away its funding (which is just as childish as emailing advertisers on dailykos with "omg kos said he's glad americans died and you have ads with him i'm going to harass you until you remove them"). The way to fight it is to articulate your own arguments against it, and know that reasonable people will be listening to you.
posted by reklaw at 3:38 PM on April 11, 2004
I guess we'll just have to disagree on terminology. To me, a fundamentalist is non-violent, while an extremist is EXTREME, and will behave to the extreme. That means violence, if necessary. Islamic extremists, in my opinion, are those that would either participate in terrorism, condone, and/or support it. Perhaps I will add the prefix "violent" from now to help make that distinction - violent Islamic extremists.
posted by Witty at 3:53 PM on April 11, 2004
posted by Witty at 3:53 PM on April 11, 2004
reclaw: the best term I've heard with something like the right degree of precision is "Jihadist".
posted by George_Spiggott at 3:57 PM on April 11, 2004
posted by George_Spiggott at 3:57 PM on April 11, 2004
George_Spiggott: "Jihadist" seems to me a bit of a loaded term (a slightly silly one, actually, in that it implies that terrorism is part of a legitimate jihad). It gets its meaning across, though. [and it's reklaw, with a k. Lots of people seem to put a c in it for some reason]
Witty: "violent Islamic extremists" is fine by me. All I object to is unwarranted lumping together and guilt-by-association. This whole debate over semantics doesn't really address what the LGF posters were doing, though, which was dehumanisation using the most vile language.
I have a feeling that it's probably best for me to stop going on about all this, though, so I will.
posted by reklaw at 4:09 PM on April 11, 2004
Witty: "violent Islamic extremists" is fine by me. All I object to is unwarranted lumping together and guilt-by-association. This whole debate over semantics doesn't really address what the LGF posters were doing, though, which was dehumanisation using the most vile language.
I have a feeling that it's probably best for me to stop going on about all this, though, so I will.
posted by reklaw at 4:09 PM on April 11, 2004
I like the word 'Jihadist'. Trouble is, all muslims are instructed to engage in jihad - as a spiritual or military struggle, which is the nearest definition in english, I'm led to believe. So that may not work either.
Islamofascist, anyone?
posted by dash_slot- at 4:13 PM on April 11, 2004
Islamofascist, anyone?
posted by dash_slot- at 4:13 PM on April 11, 2004
This whole debate over semantics doesn't really address what the LGF posters were doing, though, which was dehumanisation using the most vile language.
Nor does it address what some of our members were doing -- defending that language. Not the right to its use, but its content. But at least we got some of those more unpleasant members to show their true colours. I hope people will remember what the cold light of day reveals.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:04 PM on April 11, 2004
Nor does it address what some of our members were doing -- defending that language. Not the right to its use, but its content. But at least we got some of those more unpleasant members to show their true colours. I hope people will remember what the cold light of day reveals.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:04 PM on April 11, 2004
I just wanted to point out the the member on LGF who ends his posts with "dg" is not me or anyone connected with me.
I also can't resist responding to this:
They wouldn't be extremists is they didn't hate us... that's the point.
I have known several extreme muslims and they do not hate anyone. They may disagree with and maybe even hate the things (whatever they are) that we stand for, but they do not hate us. A small but vital distinction.
posted by dg at 6:18 PM on April 11, 2004
I also can't resist responding to this:
They wouldn't be extremists is they didn't hate us... that's the point.
I have known several extreme muslims and they do not hate anyone. They may disagree with and maybe even hate the things (whatever they are) that we stand for, but they do not hate us. A small but vital distinction.
posted by dg at 6:18 PM on April 11, 2004
the best term I've heard with something like the right degree of precision is "Jihadist".
George_Spiggott: "Jihadist" seems to me a bit of a loaded term
Just plain "terrorist" works fine for me. It focuses not on the religion or nationality of the offender but on the actions they take, which is what is truly the problem. Plus it can apply equally to Hamas, the IRA, or the Aryan Nations.
posted by jonmc at 6:28 PM on April 11, 2004
George_Spiggott: "Jihadist" seems to me a bit of a loaded term
Just plain "terrorist" works fine for me. It focuses not on the religion or nationality of the offender but on the actions they take, which is what is truly the problem. Plus it can apply equally to Hamas, the IRA, or the Aryan Nations.
posted by jonmc at 6:28 PM on April 11, 2004
were you the first one to run in from the playground and tell teacher on johnny when he was bad krrrlson?
posted by specialk420 at 7:11 PM on April 11, 2004
posted by specialk420 at 7:11 PM on April 11, 2004
Except, uh, jonmc, the people being discussed are not necessarily those who a) have carried out successful "terrorist" attacks, b) have carried out unsuccessful "terrorist" attacks, c) planned "terrorist" attacks. In discussions of this issue, a blanket term is not useful, apt, or insightful: it's in fact obfuscating.
posted by Marquis at 7:30 PM on April 11, 2004
posted by Marquis at 7:30 PM on April 11, 2004
I guess I was, specialk420. I'm sorry you were late to the shit-flinging.
posted by Krrrlson at 7:57 PM on April 11, 2004
posted by Krrrlson at 7:57 PM on April 11, 2004
Fuck LGF but it's good the thread got deleted... it's about the history between the sites, no need to put MeFi's ass on the line in another ugly feud.
posted by cell divide at 8:20 PM on April 11, 2004
posted by cell divide at 8:20 PM on April 11, 2004
Marquis: If someone hasn't carried out or planned any terrorist attacks then one can likely no more call that person 'violent' either.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:06 PM on April 11, 2004
posted by Space Coyote at 10:06 PM on April 11, 2004
the little girls over at LGF don't stand for much dissenting opinion in their little "hate filled community" do they?
posted by specialk420 at 11:05 PM on April 11, 2004
posted by specialk420 at 11:05 PM on April 11, 2004
You mean the dissenting opinion about how the Zionist neocon pigs are ruining America? I wouldn't know, as I don't police LGF or pay attention to the trolls and bigots who have given it a bad name.
I have a sneaking suspicion that your own bigotry and conspiracy theories are ever so thinly veiled.
posted by Krrrlson at 11:27 PM on April 11, 2004
I have a sneaking suspicion that your own bigotry and conspiracy theories are ever so thinly veiled.
posted by Krrrlson at 11:27 PM on April 11, 2004
You mean the dissenting opinion about how the Zionist neocon pigs are ruining America?
Bang that drum.
posted by The God Complex at 11:35 PM on April 11, 2004
Bang that drum.
posted by The God Complex at 11:35 PM on April 11, 2004
PS - how about you read some of the literature written by neocons in the mid 90's detailing how the Israelis should recapture the zionist spirit in order to transcend their "enemies"?
People are allowed to criticize Israel without being anti-semitic bigots, but it's abundantly clear given your recent comments that you're incapable of understanding this. You strawmanned the mossad into y2karl's thread last night for no reason.
posted by The God Complex at 11:38 PM on April 11, 2004
People are allowed to criticize Israel without being anti-semitic bigots, but it's abundantly clear given your recent comments that you're incapable of understanding this. You strawmanned the mossad into y2karl's thread last night for no reason.
posted by The God Complex at 11:38 PM on April 11, 2004
check out the article on LGF over at www.JewSchool.com
posted by Babylonian at 11:51 PM on April 11, 2004
posted by Babylonian at 11:51 PM on April 11, 2004
the Zionist neocon pigs are ruining America--it's this colorful invective, put into other people's mouths by innuendo, followed by why I never meant that except if you really thought that and then it would be accurate contortionist sophistry dished out to Stavros. Suicide bomber, Mossad, Zionist neocon pigs--this is the language of slur, impugning other people with being anti-semites but not coming out and saying it.
Why destroy your own point by naming names, getting personal with someone who never made a comment in the thread in question in the first place?
Matteo commented in a thread to a post made by tranquileye on April 2nd but NOT the thread by iamck, made on April 10, which he complains about here, where he made a post by in which he took a shot at Matteo, who had made no comment in that thread at all. When I pulled that shit with hama7 back in the day, I got called on it forthwith by stavros--between hama7 and whom there is no excess of sloppy puppy kisses, those two--called out and rightly so.
That is exactly what I was talking about when I made my comment above and that is exactly what he did. What? It's kosher to take a gratuitous swing at someone in the present who hasn't even said anything? I can see getting into it when someone says something to piss you off but why whack at them in their absence?
And are we to sign off on sliming someone for not saying anything in the present by constructing a possible anti-semitic slur they might make and putting it in their mouth? Did specialk420 call anyone a zionist neocon pig? Where? Where's the link?
Why said he did when he didn't except to make Krrrlson right by making specialk420 anti-semitically wrong by creatively giving him something to say which he never said. That is what I meant by putting words in people's mouths.
I have a sneaking suspicion that your own bigotry and conspiracy theories are ever so thinly veiled.
That is pretty much the message.
So do you also subscribe to the idea that Secret Bush Agents planned and orchestrated 9/11 (add "helped by Mossad Operatives" here if you want)?
He whipped it out on stavros last night and then back pedaled as soon as called out on it. But tonight he whips it right back out: Munchausen's Jew Baiting By Proxy syndrome--it's dirty pool and playing the victim, too. I think it's sleazy.
posted by y2karl at 12:52 AM on April 12, 2004
Why destroy your own point by naming names, getting personal with someone who never made a comment in the thread in question in the first place?
Matteo commented in a thread to a post made by tranquileye on April 2nd but NOT the thread by iamck, made on April 10, which he complains about here, where he made a post by in which he took a shot at Matteo, who had made no comment in that thread at all. When I pulled that shit with hama7 back in the day, I got called on it forthwith by stavros--between hama7 and whom there is no excess of sloppy puppy kisses, those two--called out and rightly so.
That is exactly what I was talking about when I made my comment above and that is exactly what he did. What? It's kosher to take a gratuitous swing at someone in the present who hasn't even said anything? I can see getting into it when someone says something to piss you off but why whack at them in their absence?
And are we to sign off on sliming someone for not saying anything in the present by constructing a possible anti-semitic slur they might make and putting it in their mouth? Did specialk420 call anyone a zionist neocon pig? Where? Where's the link?
Why said he did when he didn't except to make Krrrlson right by making specialk420 anti-semitically wrong by creatively giving him something to say which he never said. That is what I meant by putting words in people's mouths.
I have a sneaking suspicion that your own bigotry and conspiracy theories are ever so thinly veiled.
That is pretty much the message.
So do you also subscribe to the idea that Secret Bush Agents planned and orchestrated 9/11 (add "helped by Mossad Operatives" here if you want)?
He whipped it out on stavros last night and then back pedaled as soon as called out on it. But tonight he whips it right back out: Munchausen's Jew Baiting By Proxy syndrome--it's dirty pool and playing the victim, too. I think it's sleazy.
posted by y2karl at 12:52 AM on April 12, 2004
hmmmmm... the delicious taste of defamatory ad hominems...
sorry for coming late to the party, but anyway: it's cool to have one's ass unwillingly dragged in a thread like this (note to Krrlson and his buddies: what about an e-mail, in a case like this? you know, just to warn somebody that he/she's being pointed out as a baaaaaaad example for the community).
bah
I actually take some pride in appearing in some people's black lists -- sometimes having the right enemies is more important than having the right friends.
it's also nice to see one's comments shifted from a thread to another, anyway I don't even have a problem with that.
people less rabid than Krrrlson (no, my friend, terrorists haven't managed to blow up my ass and dismember me yet, as you so graphically wished a few weeks ago, such a delightfully rorschachian comment that was...), I was saying, people less rabid than him actually understand a very simple point: it is possible to discuss Muslim extremism all the time (after all Al Qaeda is not made of eskimos) without being offensive, of slandering Islam.
those of us who are somehow familiar with the history of religion understand that violence and religious isseus have been associated almost since day 1 (way before Islam was even born -- four centuries of persecution of early Christians, I'm sure you're familiar with that). but one thing is to discuss a particular, narrow brand of terrorist extremism like Al Qaeda's, another is to associate 1.3 billion Muslims with terrorism.
that would be like associating all Jews with, say, Baruch Goldstein's brand of God-worship. not particularly fair, I guess.
if the point of your ad hominem is that warblog-land is devoid of racist attacks against Muslims, well, then I give up -- you're beyond help. try to replace warblog jokes about virgins in the Muslim afterlife with, say, jokes about mohelim really enjoying the (now long-discarded by the way) part about sucking the baby's wound. wouldn't that be appalling anti-semitism? of course, disgusting. want to compare notes about how silly turbans vs kippahs look?
Islam deserves the same respect of Christianity, or Judaism, or Buddhism.
9-11 didn't make it OK to disrespect a great religion.
unless of course you think that Islam is made up of 1.3 billion suicide-bombers. in this case, seek professional help.
religions can be really, really silly to the eyes of the non-believer. making racist fun of them, though, is not OK. and this comes from a secular lapsed Catholic.
9-11 changed lots of things. but respect for other cultures still stands as an important rule.
attack Al Qaeda all you want. but leave Islam alone.
anyway in the spirit of Easter, I bear no ill will toward you, Krrrlson. you are my brother, too.
and I forgive you.
by the way it could be argued, with documents, that Islam is much more tolerant than, say, Christianity. Or Judaism.
you know, there's no compulsion in religion in Islam, there's no Muslim Pope ruling the entire religion with a tight fist, there's no original sin in Islam -- children are born innocent in Islam, as opposed to the Christian view, for example. Muslim believe children are born as pure as the snow -- there's no need to have them baptized in order to remove the stain of original sin.
Islam and women? the prophet's (peace be upon him) last sermon, the Khutbatul Wada, his last words indeed, are about the obligation for the good Muslim to "treat women well and be kind to them, for they are your partners and committed helpers".
but then, I actually have taken the time to read the Qu'ran.
and I'vee never found raghead (or kippah) jokes funny. sue me.
posted by matteo at 2:39 AM on April 12, 2004
sorry for coming late to the party, but anyway: it's cool to have one's ass unwillingly dragged in a thread like this (note to Krrlson and his buddies: what about an e-mail, in a case like this? you know, just to warn somebody that he/she's being pointed out as a baaaaaaad example for the community).
bah
I actually take some pride in appearing in some people's black lists -- sometimes having the right enemies is more important than having the right friends.
it's also nice to see one's comments shifted from a thread to another, anyway I don't even have a problem with that.
people less rabid than Krrrlson (no, my friend, terrorists haven't managed to blow up my ass and dismember me yet, as you so graphically wished a few weeks ago, such a delightfully rorschachian comment that was...), I was saying, people less rabid than him actually understand a very simple point: it is possible to discuss Muslim extremism all the time (after all Al Qaeda is not made of eskimos) without being offensive, of slandering Islam.
those of us who are somehow familiar with the history of religion understand that violence and religious isseus have been associated almost since day 1 (way before Islam was even born -- four centuries of persecution of early Christians, I'm sure you're familiar with that). but one thing is to discuss a particular, narrow brand of terrorist extremism like Al Qaeda's, another is to associate 1.3 billion Muslims with terrorism.
that would be like associating all Jews with, say, Baruch Goldstein's brand of God-worship. not particularly fair, I guess.
if the point of your ad hominem is that warblog-land is devoid of racist attacks against Muslims, well, then I give up -- you're beyond help. try to replace warblog jokes about virgins in the Muslim afterlife with, say, jokes about mohelim really enjoying the (now long-discarded by the way) part about sucking the baby's wound. wouldn't that be appalling anti-semitism? of course, disgusting. want to compare notes about how silly turbans vs kippahs look?
Islam deserves the same respect of Christianity, or Judaism, or Buddhism.
9-11 didn't make it OK to disrespect a great religion.
unless of course you think that Islam is made up of 1.3 billion suicide-bombers. in this case, seek professional help.
religions can be really, really silly to the eyes of the non-believer. making racist fun of them, though, is not OK. and this comes from a secular lapsed Catholic.
9-11 changed lots of things. but respect for other cultures still stands as an important rule.
attack Al Qaeda all you want. but leave Islam alone.
anyway in the spirit of Easter, I bear no ill will toward you, Krrrlson. you are my brother, too.
and I forgive you.
by the way it could be argued, with documents, that Islam is much more tolerant than, say, Christianity. Or Judaism.
you know, there's no compulsion in religion in Islam, there's no Muslim Pope ruling the entire religion with a tight fist, there's no original sin in Islam -- children are born innocent in Islam, as opposed to the Christian view, for example. Muslim believe children are born as pure as the snow -- there's no need to have them baptized in order to remove the stain of original sin.
Islam and women? the prophet's (peace be upon him) last sermon, the Khutbatul Wada, his last words indeed, are about the obligation for the good Muslim to "treat women well and be kind to them, for they are your partners and committed helpers".
but then, I actually have taken the time to read the Qu'ran.
and I'vee never found raghead (or kippah) jokes funny. sue me.
posted by matteo at 2:39 AM on April 12, 2004
I hope all this misrepresentation of my posts (even the one about matteo and the suicide bombers, incredibly) is making you feel better about hating me and pushing your old tired "arguments," that, most of the time, have little to do with what I said. And hey, it's no longer just me -- it's "me and my buddies!" Probably rabid, just like me, and helping me control the world's banks and governments.
Oh, and don't forget to ignore specialk420's blatant trolling. It really helps your credibility.
Remember, our boys "apologize when mistaken," their boys "whip it out and backpedal when called on it."
posted by Krrrlson at 6:47 AM on April 12, 2004
Oh, and don't forget to ignore specialk420's blatant trolling. It really helps your credibility.
Remember, our boys "apologize when mistaken," their boys "whip it out and backpedal when called on it."
posted by Krrrlson at 6:47 AM on April 12, 2004
Except, uh, jonmc, the people being discussed are not necessarily those who a) have carried out successful "terrorist" attacks, b) have carried out unsuccessful "terrorist" attacks, c) planned "terrorist" attacks. In discussions of this issue, a blanket term is not useful, apt, or insightful: it's in fact obfuscating.
Not neccessarily. Ultimately it's only those who committ terrorist acts and/or provide support to those who do, that I have any problem with, or any other sane person.
posted by jonmc at 6:51 AM on April 12, 2004
Not neccessarily. Ultimately it's only those who committ terrorist acts and/or provide support to those who do, that I have any problem with, or any other sane person.
posted by jonmc at 6:51 AM on April 12, 2004
own bigotry and conspiracy theories
save it krrrlson - you couldn't bring yourself to respond to the post prima facie, and now you are going to use the tired tactic of those who support of the neocons by trying to turn any criticism of them into anti-semitism.
go run back to teacher and see if she will still listen to you.
posted by specialk420 at 6:58 AM on April 12, 2004
save it krrrlson - you couldn't bring yourself to respond to the post prima facie, and now you are going to use the tired tactic of those who support of the neocons by trying to turn any criticism of them into anti-semitism.
go run back to teacher and see if she will still listen to you.
posted by specialk420 at 6:58 AM on April 12, 2004
And hey, it's no longer just me -- it's "me and my buddies!" Probably rabid, just like me, and helping me control the world's banks and governments.
banks?
governments?
?
really, get a grip. or therapy.
anyway:
"your buddies" is the guys who like you, in the past, have dragged me to MetaTalk (usually to try to have Matt blacklist/ban me and other anti-IraqAttaq users) without warning me by e-mail
next time you drag me to MeTa, send an e-mail.
it's etiquette.
if I drag you on MeTa in the future, I'll send you a line.
it's called manners.
I say this for you and, yes, your buddies, the various McCarthyites who act just like you -- it's etiquette. if I don't know you guys are crapping on me, I can't come here to respond. so send me an e-mail. simple as that.
also, you want me to link your suicide bomber comment? to the comment where you accused me, of all people, of antiSemitism? do you want me to do that because you think you can defend those comments? if this is the case, go ahead. open posting history is one of the best features implemented by Matt, it really is.
posted by matteo at 7:11 AM on April 12, 2004
banks?
governments?
?
really, get a grip. or therapy.
anyway:
"your buddies" is the guys who like you, in the past, have dragged me to MetaTalk (usually to try to have Matt blacklist/ban me and other anti-IraqAttaq users) without warning me by e-mail
next time you drag me to MeTa, send an e-mail.
it's etiquette.
if I drag you on MeTa in the future, I'll send you a line.
it's called manners.
I say this for you and, yes, your buddies, the various McCarthyites who act just like you -- it's etiquette. if I don't know you guys are crapping on me, I can't come here to respond. so send me an e-mail. simple as that.
also, you want me to link your suicide bomber comment? to the comment where you accused me, of all people, of antiSemitism? do you want me to do that because you think you can defend those comments? if this is the case, go ahead. open posting history is one of the best features implemented by Matt, it really is.
posted by matteo at 7:11 AM on April 12, 2004
Probably rabid, just like me, and helping me control the world's banks and governments.
Except one self-pitying type who keeps trotting out what he knows for a telepathic fact people are really thinking, nobody says those things here. Nobody.
posted by y2karl at 7:37 AM on April 12, 2004
Except one self-pitying type who keeps trotting out what he knows for a telepathic fact people are really thinking, nobody says those things here. Nobody.
posted by y2karl at 7:37 AM on April 12, 2004
I have not looked too closely at LGF since the time when Anil first pointed out that the comments were getting out of hand. It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with covering a topic to the near exclusion of others on a weblog. In fact, that's one of the great things about them. He focuses on extremism/terrorism and I don't think that by never citing those Muslims that oppose violence means he's saying that all Muslims are terrorists or their supporters. That is, of course, unless he has done that. Again, I don't read the site regularly at all.
So far I have not seen any example of Charles getting racist, etc. It's always been readers in his comments. However, I would like to know if he has at any time taken a stance on those comments that do become racist, etc. and made efforts to ban those users that his critics have found to be racist, etc.
I think it might be a good idea if anyone with the answer would email it to me in order to avoid having the deleted thread repeating itself here.
posted by john at 8:13 AM on April 12, 2004
So far I have not seen any example of Charles getting racist, etc. It's always been readers in his comments. However, I would like to know if he has at any time taken a stance on those comments that do become racist, etc. and made efforts to ban those users that his critics have found to be racist, etc.
I think it might be a good idea if anyone with the answer would email it to me in order to avoid having the deleted thread repeating itself here.
posted by john at 8:13 AM on April 12, 2004
if I drag you on MeTa in the future, I'll send you a line.
To be sure, I dragged you on to MetaTalk. Krrrlson took a shot at you in the thread he complains about here--took a shot at you when you had made no comment in that thread at all.
I pointed out it's a bit hypocritical to say something like And you seem to forget how often this so-called criticism of ideas is laced with personal attacks when one then turns around and gets personal with someone who has said nothing in the thread in question
Krrrlson then linked to a couple of sentences--taken out of context by Mr. all this misrepresentation of my posts--from a comment made March 26th to a thread he posted where the main point was one could criticize Israel without being an anti-semite.
Krrlson took a shot at you gratuitously in a post made on April 10th in a thread where you made no appearance whatsoever--I pointed this out. He then, in his defense, linked to a preeviouscomment you made on as justification for taking a shot at you yesterday. A gratuitous shot is a gratuitous shot. I called him out on it.
This theme of constant passive aggressive insinuations that other members are anti-semites is another topic entirely, redolent of Tom Wolfe's Mau Mauing The Flackcatchers--insinuate someone is racist or, in this case, an anti-semite, by making innuendos, obligue accusations strongly implying this is what the people he attacks are really thinking is putting words in people's mouths or at least next to their names. It's chickenshit, dishonest and despicable. If he keeps doing it, I will keep calling him out on it.
posted by y2karl at 9:47 AM on April 12, 2004
To be sure, I dragged you on to MetaTalk. Krrrlson took a shot at you in the thread he complains about here--took a shot at you when you had made no comment in that thread at all.
I pointed out it's a bit hypocritical to say something like And you seem to forget how often this so-called criticism of ideas is laced with personal attacks when one then turns around and gets personal with someone who has said nothing in the thread in question
Krrrlson then linked to a couple of sentences--taken out of context by Mr. all this misrepresentation of my posts--from a comment made March 26th to a thread he posted where the main point was one could criticize Israel without being an anti-semite.
Krrlson took a shot at you gratuitously in a post made on April 10th in a thread where you made no appearance whatsoever--I pointed this out. He then, in his defense, linked to a preeviouscomment you made on as justification for taking a shot at you yesterday. A gratuitous shot is a gratuitous shot. I called him out on it.
This theme of constant passive aggressive insinuations that other members are anti-semites is another topic entirely, redolent of Tom Wolfe's Mau Mauing The Flackcatchers--insinuate someone is racist or, in this case, an anti-semite, by making innuendos, obligue accusations strongly implying this is what the people he attacks are really thinking is putting words in people's mouths or at least next to their names. It's chickenshit, dishonest and despicable. If he keeps doing it, I will keep calling him out on it.
posted by y2karl at 9:47 AM on April 12, 2004
The culture of hate wins when any suggestion that such ideas are poisonous is cast as either some sort of personality conflict or a mere difference in political perspective.
/applaud
So...what is this ¨LGF¨ and why do we care?
posted by rushmc at 10:30 AM on April 12, 2004
/applaud
So...what is this ¨LGF¨ and why do we care?
posted by rushmc at 10:30 AM on April 12, 2004
y2karl -- don't forget "and never responding when others call me on something." (P.S. Don't ask me for links to your own hypocrisies -- I don't care enough about you to prove them to you, and you know the instances better than I.)
posted by Krrrlson at 12:22 PM on April 12, 2004
posted by Krrrlson at 12:22 PM on April 12, 2004
Nor does it address what some of our members were doing -- defending that language. Not the right to its use, but its content. But at least we got some of those more unpleasant members to show their true colours.
As I mentioned, content and context are conflated, yet your motive here, through repetitive and hypocritical mock indignation, is to shrewdly uncover some ulterior motive where there is none. I rarely read LGF because some of the descriptions of barbarism and inhumanity from intransigent, extremist, (terrorist) practitioners of the "Religion of Peace" and their sympathizers in media and elsewhere, their hatred for America, the West, and a free Israel, is often just too much to comprehend. I know I'm not alone in sayng that I'm glad that Charles Johnson has the ability, focus, and drive to show, as truthfully and consistently as possible, the utter depravity and perversion of the enemies of civilization. I use the word "civilization" intentionally, because terrorist profligacy and free, civilized societies cannot coexist. Free societies and collectivist depredation cannot coexist.
Some people may not agree that a calculating homicidal maniac who climbs aboard a bus full of schoolchildren and detonates himself may be called "vermin", or "inhuman", but I defend those who think that the term does, in fact, apply. Any particular explanation of the action, exegesis of the "root cause", or external blame is inconsequential. That the crime was committed is enough. There is no justification. There is right and wrong, morality and responsibility.
Greengrl mentioned it, and I agree that Charles Johnson bears no more responsibility for the comments made on his website than Matt Haughey bears for the sometimes bewildering and outrageous comments made on, or in connection with, his. This is just another in a long stream of (in this case rather poor) attempts to villify, discredit, and ultimately silence opinions expressed which aren't lefty groupthinking collectivist exercises in "progressive" idealogy which come from and old and well-worn playbook.
Is it not acceptable to express verbal outrage in colorful language on a website, stavrosthewonderchicken? You're beside yourself with brimming indignation and bafflement at anyone who would dare defend Little Green Footballs, yet have spit bilious epithets considerably worse than the ones you cited toward the objects of your white-hot hatred: the United States and its current President. Remember?
I'm sure you do, to name but two. Just a little reminder. Friend.
posted by hama7 at 12:23 PM on April 12, 2004
As I mentioned, content and context are conflated, yet your motive here, through repetitive and hypocritical mock indignation, is to shrewdly uncover some ulterior motive where there is none. I rarely read LGF because some of the descriptions of barbarism and inhumanity from intransigent, extremist, (terrorist) practitioners of the "Religion of Peace" and their sympathizers in media and elsewhere, their hatred for America, the West, and a free Israel, is often just too much to comprehend. I know I'm not alone in sayng that I'm glad that Charles Johnson has the ability, focus, and drive to show, as truthfully and consistently as possible, the utter depravity and perversion of the enemies of civilization. I use the word "civilization" intentionally, because terrorist profligacy and free, civilized societies cannot coexist. Free societies and collectivist depredation cannot coexist.
Some people may not agree that a calculating homicidal maniac who climbs aboard a bus full of schoolchildren and detonates himself may be called "vermin", or "inhuman", but I defend those who think that the term does, in fact, apply. Any particular explanation of the action, exegesis of the "root cause", or external blame is inconsequential. That the crime was committed is enough. There is no justification. There is right and wrong, morality and responsibility.
Greengrl mentioned it, and I agree that Charles Johnson bears no more responsibility for the comments made on his website than Matt Haughey bears for the sometimes bewildering and outrageous comments made on, or in connection with, his. This is just another in a long stream of (in this case rather poor) attempts to villify, discredit, and ultimately silence opinions expressed which aren't lefty groupthinking collectivist exercises in "progressive" idealogy which come from and old and well-worn playbook.
Is it not acceptable to express verbal outrage in colorful language on a website, stavrosthewonderchicken? You're beside yourself with brimming indignation and bafflement at anyone who would dare defend Little Green Footballs, yet have spit bilious epithets considerably worse than the ones you cited toward the objects of your white-hot hatred: the United States and its current President. Remember?
I'm sure you do, to name but two. Just a little reminder. Friend.
posted by hama7 at 12:23 PM on April 12, 2004
it's "me and my buddies!" Probably rabid, just like me, and helping me control the world's banks and governments.
It's laughable that after I point out your inability to rationally and objectively discuss this very issue that you would make what amounts to an almost comical example of exactly what I was saying. If you actually think there's a vast anti-semitic sentiment on MetaFilter because a number of people here (compassionate ones, I would say) aren't all gung-ho on the Israelis-bombing-Muslims-in-Palestine death parade, you're out to lunch. I think it's fairly clear that most people are against the killings on both sides, but disagree with the skewed, Pro-Israeli depiction of events in Western mainstream media (because, ya know, the rich side with the army bombing people without an army is pretty much our thing on this side of the world).
posted by The God Complex at 12:23 PM on April 12, 2004
It's laughable that after I point out your inability to rationally and objectively discuss this very issue that you would make what amounts to an almost comical example of exactly what I was saying. If you actually think there's a vast anti-semitic sentiment on MetaFilter because a number of people here (compassionate ones, I would say) aren't all gung-ho on the Israelis-bombing-Muslims-in-Palestine death parade, you're out to lunch. I think it's fairly clear that most people are against the killings on both sides, but disagree with the skewed, Pro-Israeli depiction of events in Western mainstream media (because, ya know, the rich side with the army bombing people without an army is pretty much our thing on this side of the world).
posted by The God Complex at 12:23 PM on April 12, 2004
y2karl -- don't forget "and never responding when others call me on something." (P.S. Don't ask me for links to your own hypocrisies -- I don't care enough about you to prove them to you
Well, Krrrlson, you care enough about him to taunt him on your profile page. Damn, dude, make a friend why doncha.
posted by scarabic at 1:06 PM on April 12, 2004
Well, Krrrlson, you care enough about him to taunt him on your profile page. Damn, dude, make a friend why doncha.
posted by scarabic at 1:06 PM on April 12, 2004
you care enough about him to taunt him on your profile page
hey! it's true!
karl, he really likes us!
posted by matteo at 1:34 PM on April 12, 2004
hey! it's true!
karl, he really likes us!
posted by matteo at 1:34 PM on April 12, 2004
I don't care enough about you to prove them to you
I, on the other hand, have a much smaller vein much richer in odious ore to explore and nothing to prove other than that you are in the habit of making slurs and insinuations which are beneath contempt and which deserve some sort of listing in the grey light of Meta. You were the person who wrote you seem to forget how often this so-called criticism of ideas is laced with personal attacks, don't forget. I'm always glad to help you honor your high ideals.
posted by y2karl at 2:06 PM on April 12, 2004
I, on the other hand, have a much smaller vein much richer in odious ore to explore and nothing to prove other than that you are in the habit of making slurs and insinuations which are beneath contempt and which deserve some sort of listing in the grey light of Meta. You were the person who wrote you seem to forget how often this so-called criticism of ideas is laced with personal attacks, don't forget. I'm always glad to help you honor your high ideals.
posted by y2karl at 2:06 PM on April 12, 2004
I'm sure you do, to name but two. Just a little reminder. Friend.
Ah! I was wondering when you'd pull those two links out of your ass again, hama7, my dear, pathetic self-appointed nemesis. What's that, the fifth or sixth time?
I'm on my way to work now, but be assured that I'll respond to your 'reminder' when I have a chance, noting along the way that I've already responded to your repeated 'reminders' in the past -- the exact same things -- because you're nothing if not persistent, and clearly not clever enough to realize when you've been beaten like a dog.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:39 PM on April 12, 2004
Ah! I was wondering when you'd pull those two links out of your ass again, hama7, my dear, pathetic self-appointed nemesis. What's that, the fifth or sixth time?
I'm on my way to work now, but be assured that I'll respond to your 'reminder' when I have a chance, noting along the way that I've already responded to your repeated 'reminders' in the past -- the exact same things -- because you're nothing if not persistent, and clearly not clever enough to realize when you've been beaten like a dog.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:39 PM on April 12, 2004
Aren't you a great defender of the Christian religion, hama7? I'm sure I've seen you take people to task for dissing on Christianity...so I'm wondering where in the gopels Jesus ever called another human being a vermin...wasn't he one for hating the sin not the sinner?
It is clear that the LGF comments that were referenced on the linked site, however, were not purely to do with terrorists (ie. abovementioned sinners) at all. One, for instance, declares that "they" "don't deserve a state"...as far as I know, no-one's asking for a state filled will guys wearing exploding jackets. The "they", therefore, clearly refers to the Palestinians, one and all, and goes on to debase and dehumanise them totally. Not nice.
posted by Jimbob at 4:51 PM on April 12, 2004
It is clear that the LGF comments that were referenced on the linked site, however, were not purely to do with terrorists (ie. abovementioned sinners) at all. One, for instance, declares that "they" "don't deserve a state"...as far as I know, no-one's asking for a state filled will guys wearing exploding jackets. The "they", therefore, clearly refers to the Palestinians, one and all, and goes on to debase and dehumanise them totally. Not nice.
posted by Jimbob at 4:51 PM on April 12, 2004
After a delightful morning ride to work through the perfumed cascades of flowers and the perfumed sea air, I've decided to take the high road. What a lovely feeling.
I'll just offer this, though, in terms as simple as possible, so as not to strain you too much. The piece you link to on my site is comedy, hama7. Politically allegorical, and deeply offensive to most, of course, and I acknowledge that upfront in the piece itself. I would think that such a staunch defender of free speech as yourself would embrace my right to write such a thing. Although I call them scum, and believe them to be Bad Men, I do not believe Mssrs Bush and Cheney to actually be subhuman vermin, and I believe they should have the right to trial by law, just like anyone else.
You see, there's a difference between over-the-top comedy, even a difference between calling individuals filthy names, and characterizing an entire group, in dead seriousness, as 'subhuman' or 'vermin', to be exterminated. There are abundant examples in your American justice system, indeed, where the rights of individuals may be curtailed or taken away entirely, but it is not acceptable to most civilized people, and most civilized nations, for the same to be done to arbitrary groups of people, because of their ethnicity or religion or sexual preference. These two ideas are not unrelated. But I digress.
I was hardly 'beside myself' in that thread, hama7. A quick read, including my statement there that 'I think your words speak clearly enough for themselves, as do mine, and those of the LGF posters quoted above' says it all, to all but the most inattentive of readers. Your refusal, when repeatedly asked, to state clearly that you do not subscribe to the sort of dirt-stick-stone fear-based demonization of the other that was displayed by the LGF quotes in the original thread, while making clear you support the gist of what they say (and cloaking it in a deliberately obfuscating strawman declaration of your support for their right to say it, a transparently obvious tactic that we're all abundantly familiar with by now) makes you the worst sort of person in my books : one who harbours and supports hatred of groups of people, but doesn't have the balls or the honesty to come out and say so openly, and thus risk the disapprobation of a community that abhors such things.
I stand behind my black-comedic stylings, foully offensive as they were, because I trust that people are smart enough to understand that they come from a love of people and a deep disgust for some individuals and their actions, for which they, and only they, are responsible. Your brand of loathsome bile, as far as I can tell based on your words, springs from precisely the opposite standpoint. I note in passing that you don't seem to have the backbone to stand behind your words.
As far as my comment here at Metafilter, to which you've linked so many times : it was made clear both by myself and others who came to my defense when first you tried to smear me by deliberate misinterpretation of it that it doesn't mean what you say (or imply) it means. The fact that you keep pointing to it means a) you're not smart enough to understand that or b) you understand it, don't care, but can't find anything else to use against me. Why you keep trying, I don't really understand, but it's amusing, if nothing else. I can't be bothered to find the link to the MeTa threads in question where you've brought it up and been slapped down for it, by myself and others -- unlike you, apparently, I do have better things to do with my time than obsessively track the commenting history of those with whom I disagree.
OK, so I didn't take the high road so much. Ah well.
Still, I am pleased too see that you read my website, hama7, and I hope you will consider buying a copy of the upcoming 'Best of Web Writing' book to which I've been asked to contribute. Thanks for sending more readers my way.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:26 PM on April 12, 2004
I'll just offer this, though, in terms as simple as possible, so as not to strain you too much. The piece you link to on my site is comedy, hama7. Politically allegorical, and deeply offensive to most, of course, and I acknowledge that upfront in the piece itself. I would think that such a staunch defender of free speech as yourself would embrace my right to write such a thing. Although I call them scum, and believe them to be Bad Men, I do not believe Mssrs Bush and Cheney to actually be subhuman vermin, and I believe they should have the right to trial by law, just like anyone else.
You see, there's a difference between over-the-top comedy, even a difference between calling individuals filthy names, and characterizing an entire group, in dead seriousness, as 'subhuman' or 'vermin', to be exterminated. There are abundant examples in your American justice system, indeed, where the rights of individuals may be curtailed or taken away entirely, but it is not acceptable to most civilized people, and most civilized nations, for the same to be done to arbitrary groups of people, because of their ethnicity or religion or sexual preference. These two ideas are not unrelated. But I digress.
I was hardly 'beside myself' in that thread, hama7. A quick read, including my statement there that 'I think your words speak clearly enough for themselves, as do mine, and those of the LGF posters quoted above' says it all, to all but the most inattentive of readers. Your refusal, when repeatedly asked, to state clearly that you do not subscribe to the sort of dirt-stick-stone fear-based demonization of the other that was displayed by the LGF quotes in the original thread, while making clear you support the gist of what they say (and cloaking it in a deliberately obfuscating strawman declaration of your support for their right to say it, a transparently obvious tactic that we're all abundantly familiar with by now) makes you the worst sort of person in my books : one who harbours and supports hatred of groups of people, but doesn't have the balls or the honesty to come out and say so openly, and thus risk the disapprobation of a community that abhors such things.
I stand behind my black-comedic stylings, foully offensive as they were, because I trust that people are smart enough to understand that they come from a love of people and a deep disgust for some individuals and their actions, for which they, and only they, are responsible. Your brand of loathsome bile, as far as I can tell based on your words, springs from precisely the opposite standpoint. I note in passing that you don't seem to have the backbone to stand behind your words.
As far as my comment here at Metafilter, to which you've linked so many times : it was made clear both by myself and others who came to my defense when first you tried to smear me by deliberate misinterpretation of it that it doesn't mean what you say (or imply) it means. The fact that you keep pointing to it means a) you're not smart enough to understand that or b) you understand it, don't care, but can't find anything else to use against me. Why you keep trying, I don't really understand, but it's amusing, if nothing else. I can't be bothered to find the link to the MeTa threads in question where you've brought it up and been slapped down for it, by myself and others -- unlike you, apparently, I do have better things to do with my time than obsessively track the commenting history of those with whom I disagree.
OK, so I didn't take the high road so much. Ah well.
Still, I am pleased too see that you read my website, hama7, and I hope you will consider buying a copy of the upcoming 'Best of Web Writing' book to which I've been asked to contribute. Thanks for sending more readers my way.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:26 PM on April 12, 2004
Still, I am pleased too see that you read my website, hama7, and I hope you will consider buying a copy of the upcoming 'Best of Web Writing' book to which I've been asked to contribute. Thanks for sending more readers my way.
congrats, stav! you're famous(ish) now! and I vote for your remembrance of your friend
posted by amberglow at 5:53 PM on April 12, 2004
congrats, stav! you're famous(ish) now! and I vote for your remembrance of your friend
posted by amberglow at 5:53 PM on April 12, 2004
I stand behind my black-comedic stylings, foully offensive as they were, because I trust that people are smart enough to understand that they come from a love of people and a deep disgust for some individuals and their actions, for which they, and only they, are responsible.
If you say so. I read the "piece" and, for lack of a better way to put it at the moment, I don't get it. I mean I do, but I'm not so sure it really matters. Rather, it seems as though you're enjoying acting out some personal sexual fetish fantasy (or recollection perhaps) more than anything else. Is that some of the writing they'll be including in the book?
posted by Witty at 10:12 PM on April 12, 2004
If you say so. I read the "piece" and, for lack of a better way to put it at the moment, I don't get it. I mean I do, but I'm not so sure it really matters. Rather, it seems as though you're enjoying acting out some personal sexual fetish fantasy (or recollection perhaps) more than anything else. Is that some of the writing they'll be including in the book?
posted by Witty at 10:12 PM on April 12, 2004
Yes, because nothing says "funny" like raping and murdering children.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:33 PM on April 12, 2004
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:33 PM on April 12, 2004
By the way, in relation to the LGF quiz, Billmon took it;
Definitely a challenge, but (no false modesty here) I'm pleased to report I aced it -- 14 out of 14 quotes correctly identiifed. I might have had a bit of an edge going in, since I once wrote a college term paper on the cultural antecedents of Nazi rhetoric. But reading the quiz quotes carefully, I also noticed two things:
The first difference obviously reflects the difference in rank and station between the two groups. The Late German Fascists quoted in the test were all leaders -- top party officials, Werhmacht generals, etc. And many of the quiz quotes were taken from their public remarks, which no doubt were written by the finest speechwriters Nazi Germany had to offer.
I'm sure if we could go back and transcribe (and translate) the beer hall boasts of a typical group of SA men, or the shop talk of a couple of Gestapo torturers, it probably would sound a lot more like the typical Little Greenfoot Balls comment -- a kind of pidgin Mein Kampf.
The second contrast -- genocide as patriotic duty versus genocide as a blood sport -- probably reflects the fact that the Late German Fascists quoted in the quiz were all experienced practitioners, while the gang over at Little Green Footballs are, at best, aspiring amateurs.
posted by y2karl at 10:46 PM on April 12, 2004
Definitely a challenge, but (no false modesty here) I'm pleased to report I aced it -- 14 out of 14 quotes correctly identiifed. I might have had a bit of an edge going in, since I once wrote a college term paper on the cultural antecedents of Nazi rhetoric. But reading the quiz quotes carefully, I also noticed two things:
1.) The average Late German Fascist was considerably more articulate -- and almost certainly more intelligent -- than the average Little Green Footballer.The Little Green Football quotes generally made it sound like a spectator sport .
2.) The Late German Fascist quotes tended to describe genocide as a harsh and disagreeable duty that had to be done to save the Fatherland.
The first difference obviously reflects the difference in rank and station between the two groups. The Late German Fascists quoted in the test were all leaders -- top party officials, Werhmacht generals, etc. And many of the quiz quotes were taken from their public remarks, which no doubt were written by the finest speechwriters Nazi Germany had to offer.
I'm sure if we could go back and transcribe (and translate) the beer hall boasts of a typical group of SA men, or the shop talk of a couple of Gestapo torturers, it probably would sound a lot more like the typical Little Greenfoot Balls comment -- a kind of pidgin Mein Kampf.
The second contrast -- genocide as patriotic duty versus genocide as a blood sport -- probably reflects the fact that the Late German Fascists quoted in the quiz were all experienced practitioners, while the gang over at Little Green Footballs are, at best, aspiring amateurs.
posted by y2karl at 10:46 PM on April 12, 2004
Yes, because nothing says "funny" like raping and murdering children.
Children? Well, it's... interesting that that's what you took away, crash. Such was not my intent (although I could see that using the words 'boy' and 'girl' might incline you to think that's what I meant), but if a monkey looks in the mirror, he rarely sees a poet, huh? I said at the outset, in the piece and here, that I was deliberately trying to be offensive as possible when I wrote it. Seems my mission was accomplished.
There is humour both black- and light-hearted. I would have thought you'd be aware of that.
Rather, it seems as though you're enjoying acting out some personal sexual fetish fantasy (or recollection perhaps) more than anything else.
Why, that's it, Witty, of course. Your penetrating insight astonishes me, as always!
Is that some of the writing they'll be including in the book?
Nope. I don't consider it an example of my best writing. Damn near gave me nightmares writing the thing, though.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:01 PM on April 12, 2004
Children? Well, it's... interesting that that's what you took away, crash. Such was not my intent (although I could see that using the words 'boy' and 'girl' might incline you to think that's what I meant), but if a monkey looks in the mirror, he rarely sees a poet, huh? I said at the outset, in the piece and here, that I was deliberately trying to be offensive as possible when I wrote it. Seems my mission was accomplished.
There is humour both black- and light-hearted. I would have thought you'd be aware of that.
Rather, it seems as though you're enjoying acting out some personal sexual fetish fantasy (or recollection perhaps) more than anything else.
Why, that's it, Witty, of course. Your penetrating insight astonishes me, as always!
Is that some of the writing they'll be including in the book?
Nope. I don't consider it an example of my best writing. Damn near gave me nightmares writing the thing, though.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:01 PM on April 12, 2004
Also, I just read the Billmon post about 30 minutes ago, too, y2karl, and I thought the best bit was "The Little Green Footballers aren't Nazis -- any more than a 13-year old kid jerking off with a copy of Playboy is Hugh Hefner."
In that very narrow slice of the dispute, I do find common ground with those who would defend the original posters of the comments at LGF which made it to the quiz. See, I can play nice.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:15 PM on April 12, 2004
In that very narrow slice of the dispute, I do find common ground with those who would defend the original posters of the comments at LGF which made it to the quiz. See, I can play nice.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:15 PM on April 12, 2004
Also, crash my friend, if you haven't heard it already, I suggest you listen to the first part of the Jon Stewart/Al Franken interview that mathowie is so graciously hosting at the moment, where they amusingly talk about what's 'over the line'. They make the point better than I ever could, and are, of course, much funnier than me, too.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:59 PM on April 12, 2004
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:59 PM on April 12, 2004
I don't have clue one who this "billmon" character is, but he seems like an ok sort. I'll immediately forget about him and his website, of course, as I do with all websites I promise to check out, but for the moment I swear I'm going to check him out!
The only reason I ever went to Stav's site twice was because he quoted Henry Miller!
posted by The God Complex at 12:00 AM on April 13, 2004
The only reason I ever went to Stav's site twice was because he quoted Henry Miller!
posted by The God Complex at 12:00 AM on April 13, 2004
bastard!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:03 AM on April 13, 2004
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:03 AM on April 13, 2004
It was another compliment (two in two days, I should stop)! You hooked me with "the master" and your cleverly designed layout. It's just that, you know, what you write is usually so fucking long and I'm so fucking mtv-generation. Your punk/web thing from a couple months ago was top notch though.
posted by The God Complex at 12:07 AM on April 13, 2004
posted by The God Complex at 12:07 AM on April 13, 2004
For those that can't take stavs Bush-Cheney porn, I heartily recommend Mexican electricity or Fumbled by an Irish Backpacker. The man can write I tells ya!
posted by i_cola at 8:32 AM on April 13, 2004
posted by i_cola at 8:32 AM on April 13, 2004
"There is humour both black- and light-hearted. I would have thought you'd be aware of that."
I'm well aware of, and appreciative of, black humor; but I guess the point at which our paths diverge is that you consider what you wrote to be humorous and I just find it vile. As much as it pains me, I can see Witty's point that it reads more like someone's sick fantasy than an attempt at black humor.
I don't agree that's what it is, that's what it reads like. Just so we're clear on that.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:29 AM on April 13, 2004
I'm well aware of, and appreciative of, black humor; but I guess the point at which our paths diverge is that you consider what you wrote to be humorous and I just find it vile. As much as it pains me, I can see Witty's point that it reads more like someone's sick fantasy than an attempt at black humor.
I don't agree that's what it is, that's what it reads like. Just so we're clear on that.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:29 AM on April 13, 2004
wasn't he one for hating the sin not the sinner?
When the "sin" is terrorism, I'm not aware that anybody has ever suggested that a free state has no moral right to defend itself. "They" refers to terrorists.
You see, there's a difference between over-the-top comedy, even a difference between calling individuals filthy names, and characterizing an entire group, in dead seriousness, as 'subhuman' or 'vermin', to be exterminated.
When the "entire group" consists of terrorists, their tactical sponsors, and their financial supporters, mere extermination is far too kind. Something along the lines of "crushed to grease beneath the indifferent heel of history" would be more accurate. Send the bill for the price of the bullet to their families. Decimate. Grind their bones and dance on their graves with hobnailed boots, pukegutted, malignant, diseased filth that they are. I hope were getting the picture. Please note that once again, the meaning which you repeatedly attempt to attribute to my words is not there. I have not said that the entirety of the Muslim population from Indonesia to Croatia to Rwanda is to blame, but that is your repeated, baseless accusation. I have said, however, that among extremist Muslims, and Islamists, the ratio of terrorists is absurdly high. The borders are bloody. To deny that such a relationship exists is the height of foolhardy idiocy. It's also unacceptable.
makes you the worst sort of person in my books : one who harbours and supports hatred of groups of people,
If hating the threat of terrorism and the zealots who actually plan and carry out calculated intentional attacks on defenseless civilians including women and children makes me wrong, then I don't want to be right. The fact that you intentionally try to misconstrue my defense of LGF makes you an altogether different person, and were I casting judgement on the personalities of strangers on the internet, my assessment of yours would be far graver than yours of mine. But I digress.
I stand behind my black-comedic stylings
Now I understand. Knee-slapping hilarity was the purpose of wishing Americans dead in terrifyingly large numbers"? Or are you talking about drug-addled rapist-murderer caricatures of the President and Mr. Cheney? See, they were both so side-splittingly frolicsome, I can't decide which is more fucking enjoyable!
So I guess it was humor you were after when you, in a gleeful spree, vomited offensive, dated epithets for blacks not in just one comment, but two, three, four, five, six times! And your lurid American fantasies are supposed to be humorous as well? Comedy gold.
posted by hama7 at 11:07 AM on April 13, 2004
When the "sin" is terrorism, I'm not aware that anybody has ever suggested that a free state has no moral right to defend itself. "They" refers to terrorists.
You see, there's a difference between over-the-top comedy, even a difference between calling individuals filthy names, and characterizing an entire group, in dead seriousness, as 'subhuman' or 'vermin', to be exterminated.
When the "entire group" consists of terrorists, their tactical sponsors, and their financial supporters, mere extermination is far too kind. Something along the lines of "crushed to grease beneath the indifferent heel of history" would be more accurate. Send the bill for the price of the bullet to their families. Decimate. Grind their bones and dance on their graves with hobnailed boots, pukegutted, malignant, diseased filth that they are. I hope were getting the picture. Please note that once again, the meaning which you repeatedly attempt to attribute to my words is not there. I have not said that the entirety of the Muslim population from Indonesia to Croatia to Rwanda is to blame, but that is your repeated, baseless accusation. I have said, however, that among extremist Muslims, and Islamists, the ratio of terrorists is absurdly high. The borders are bloody. To deny that such a relationship exists is the height of foolhardy idiocy. It's also unacceptable.
makes you the worst sort of person in my books : one who harbours and supports hatred of groups of people,
If hating the threat of terrorism and the zealots who actually plan and carry out calculated intentional attacks on defenseless civilians including women and children makes me wrong, then I don't want to be right. The fact that you intentionally try to misconstrue my defense of LGF makes you an altogether different person, and were I casting judgement on the personalities of strangers on the internet, my assessment of yours would be far graver than yours of mine. But I digress.
I stand behind my black-comedic stylings
Now I understand. Knee-slapping hilarity was the purpose of wishing Americans dead in terrifyingly large numbers"? Or are you talking about drug-addled rapist-murderer caricatures of the President and Mr. Cheney? See, they were both so side-splittingly frolicsome, I can't decide which is more fucking enjoyable!
So I guess it was humor you were after when you, in a gleeful spree, vomited offensive, dated epithets for blacks not in just one comment, but two, three, four, five, six times! And your lurid American fantasies are supposed to be humorous as well? Comedy gold.
posted by hama7 at 11:07 AM on April 13, 2004
I almost forgot:
rights of individuals may be curtailed or taken away entirely.....sexual preference.
There you've either made a logical fallacy, or you have unintentionally made one of the strongest arguments against calling a sanctioned relationship between homosexuals "marriage". You see, a preference is not a unique unchangeable part of one's nature, nor does it engender any sort of right whatsoever, anywhere. Still, even if it were not a choice, marriage is denied to no individual. There is no curtailment or removal of rights. Another error.
"Gay marriage" confusions - Thomas Sowell
posted by hama7 at 12:04 PM on April 13, 2004
rights of individuals may be curtailed or taken away entirely.....sexual preference.
There you've either made a logical fallacy, or you have unintentionally made one of the strongest arguments against calling a sanctioned relationship between homosexuals "marriage". You see, a preference is not a unique unchangeable part of one's nature, nor does it engender any sort of right whatsoever, anywhere. Still, even if it were not a choice, marriage is denied to no individual. There is no curtailment or removal of rights. Another error.
"Gay marriage" confusions - Thomas Sowell
posted by hama7 at 12:04 PM on April 13, 2004
When the "sin" is terrorism, I'm not aware that anybody has ever suggested that a free state has no moral right to defend itself.
I don't remember mentioning anything about international politics and defense. I'm just wondering why a good Christian such as yourself would be hating people for simply being the same ethnicity as some terrorists.
My concern, hama7, is that you have a history of paying lip-service to Christianity simply because it has stood at times in historical opposition to your two greatest fears; Islam and Socialism; not because you have any understanding of its teachings.
"They" refers to terrorists.
Proove it.
posted by Jimbob at 4:48 PM on April 13, 2004
I don't remember mentioning anything about international politics and defense. I'm just wondering why a good Christian such as yourself would be hating people for simply being the same ethnicity as some terrorists.
My concern, hama7, is that you have a history of paying lip-service to Christianity simply because it has stood at times in historical opposition to your two greatest fears; Islam and Socialism; not because you have any understanding of its teachings.
"They" refers to terrorists.
Proove it.
posted by Jimbob at 4:48 PM on April 13, 2004
You're my #1 stalker nigger, hama7, you humourless backpedaling hatemonger, you! As always when you do this, I'm mildly disconcerted that you'd spend so much time combing through my comment history to find things you can point at and miscontrue, though.
hama7: mere extermination is far too kind. Something along the lines of "crushed to grease beneath the indifferent heel of history" would be more accurate. Send the bill for the price of the bullet to their families. Decimate. Grind their bones and dance on their graves with hobnailed boots, pukegutted, malignant, diseased filth that they are. I hope were getting the picture.
This time, I think I'll just let your words and mine speak for themselves.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:50 PM on April 13, 2004
hama7: mere extermination is far too kind. Something along the lines of "crushed to grease beneath the indifferent heel of history" would be more accurate. Send the bill for the price of the bullet to their families. Decimate. Grind their bones and dance on their graves with hobnailed boots, pukegutted, malignant, diseased filth that they are. I hope were getting the picture.
This time, I think I'll just let your words and mine speak for themselves.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:50 PM on April 13, 2004
It's nigga, stravos the wonder chicken... not nigger. Slap on a little blaccent and you're good to go.
posted by Witty at 6:27 PM on April 13, 2004
posted by Witty at 6:27 PM on April 13, 2004
hama7 - The fact that you intentionally try to misconstrue my defense of LGF...
So you are still defending LGF. Good, in a way, since I'm still waiting for your defense of this:
posted by NortonDC at 6:32 PM on April 13, 2004
So you are still defending LGF. Good, in a way, since I'm still waiting for your defense of this:
Here's one of the bullets you're referring to: "Forced sterilization, and full occupation to keep them under control until the problem solves itself in about 50 years."We're waiting.
And to contextualize it, here's the preceding sentence: "Elimination is the only solution; I know that sounds bad, but that's the way it is."
posted by NortonDC at 6:32 PM on April 13, 2004
Sorry, Witty. That Canadian accent of mine screws it up for me every time.
mr_crash_davis : Well, I guess it comes down to a matter of taste, or tolerance for limit-pushing in speech, or even interpretation of intent, then. I'm OK with that. Maybe I'll write me up an essay, if I get coffee'd up enough today.
i_cola : thanks, mate.
hama7 : nyah nyah nyah, ya big doody-head! You wanna grind my bones too? *capers*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:10 PM on April 13, 2004
mr_crash_davis : Well, I guess it comes down to a matter of taste, or tolerance for limit-pushing in speech, or even interpretation of intent, then. I'm OK with that. Maybe I'll write me up an essay, if I get coffee'd up enough today.
i_cola : thanks, mate.
hama7 : nyah nyah nyah, ya big doody-head! You wanna grind my bones too? *capers*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:10 PM on April 13, 2004
flame broiled ham or chicken--stick a fork in it, it's done
posted by y2karl at 9:03 PM on April 13, 2004
posted by y2karl at 9:03 PM on April 13, 2004
Ah, daa-ad. I was just startin' to have fun!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:06 PM on April 13, 2004
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:06 PM on April 13, 2004
« Older Shoutout: excellent answer proves AskMe works | Matt, didn't deleted threads used to be removed... Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by scarabic at 9:46 AM on April 11, 2004