I saw this and just had to post it. For someone who's a lefty, Whoopie Goldberg has always impressed me as someone who sometimes has a decent perspective, depending on the issue. On this issue of the recent Mel Gibson tirade, I am in total agreement with her, that the use of racial epithets does not indicate even latent racism within the, uh, "spewer". She makes a remark about being cut off in the car and how her emotions make her lash out. Few could honestly deny doing something similar. When emotions are high, intelligence is low. This is a fact and during emotional times, everyone is stupid and many say stupid things that don't really imply anything more than being emotional and then saying something stupid. I mean, how could Gibson be considered racist for saying such words to his girlfriend? It doesn't make sense. He's not a racist. He's pissed off. There's a difference. If he was a racist, he'd never have been with the woman to begin with.
At the same time, I see his name all over the internet. It's on the yahoo home page regarding hot topics. And it's in the news on TV. What I should be seeing more of is REAL racism that is being perpetrated by that Black Panther dude insisting that a good black man should be killing "crackers" (I love that eptithet! I'm happy to be referred to in such a happy way! Of all the things I could be called, that one just brings a smile to my face. "I hate that cracker! He kept smiling while I beat his ass!")
But that's REAL racism. Calling names is just calling names. Being pissed isn't racism, and being pissed while drunk isn't racism. Should Mel lose business because of his personal life? Too many in his line haven't over things I think are worse, or at least no better. He also carries the stigma of daring to believe in God, even though he too often displays his own imperfection (he NEEDS Jesus, doesn't he? Don't we all!) I'll still see his movies. I find the guy entertaining. I hope he finds a way to deal with whatever demons possess him. He used to be a source of pride with a previously long-standing marriage, lots of kids and even his own chapel on his property. But he's obviously got issues with booze and rage. May he find peace and may the rest of us get over this race-baiting when no racism really exists.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
Probably just a jerk, but definitely not as racist as Al Quaeda.
Make no mistake. Whoopi is a racist. One of the worst, right behind the New Black Panther Party, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Barack Hussein Obama, and Jeremiah Wright on the list of the worst racists.
Probably, she has some sort of contractual obligation to one of Mel Gibson's many entertainment businesses, and can't say anything bad about him.
Good god. You guys are really some piece of work. You bring shame to the whole race and yet the only response one can have in the face of what's written here is incredulous laughter and amazement. How can people go so wrong in such banal ways? You guys and Mark Williams. Pieces, pieces of human handiwork blind to God's majestic creation, pulling the benign weeds around your part of the curb. And only your part.
Feodor,
I'd consider it a great favor if you could simply explain what the hell you're saying. English would be freakin' great, as opposed to your normal psuedo-intellectual double-talk. Are you up for the challenge?
Well, first, let's call this a metaphor of the microcosm: you've only written three sentences and yet you've already confused things... is it a "favor" or a "challenge", Marshall?
You really aren't very bright, are you? It would be a favor to me if you could take up the challenge of explaining your goofy comment in a manner that isn't another boring episode of posturing as the towering intellect you believe yourself to be, but so clearly aren't.
Now this is typical of you, Marshall, the smoke and mirror strategy of projecting your laziness onto others:
1st, you said, "I'd consider it a great favor if you could simply explain..."
Notice the favor is "explain."
2nd, you said (likely not enjoying the submissive role you place yourself in with the first statement), "English would be freakin' great, as opposed to... Are you up for the challenge?"
Now 3rd, you have to cover yourself by acting as if there is a connection where there wasn't one. You make things up.
This is why English, or any language, is worthless in dialogue with you. You break simple rules, hoping they are such simple ones, no one will notice. And I think you expect yourself to not notice, too. It's willful, dishonest, and cheap... and I don't mean this little business... I mean with the important stuff.
I'll consider this the great favor you asked for, a mirror to the operations of your own motivations.
The mirror explains, by the way, the reasons -- not name calling -- but the reasons why you are the Nigger. It has to do not with the way you think, but how you use thinking. Self-deceptive, invisibly angry, shadow-boxing with half-truths, you are a distorter of the simple things. You are the Nigger.
Speaking of mirrors, how can you ever look into one and see that you are completely full of shit? Are you now pretending to be an analyst? Do you really possess such arrogance to believe you're smart enough to know your ass from a hole in the ground, much less my motivations? The stark laughably humor of it all is that I could not be more straightforward in what I believe. I could not be a more open book. Self-deceptive? This is a hoot coming from you who supposes yourself deep and thoughtful. Distorter of simple things? Again, from a false priest like yourself bastardizing plainly revealed Scripture to satisfy your worldliness...the irony is incredible.
Let's look at this situation from an HONEST perspective. Read slowly and have someone help you understand. I'll try to use only small words just for you:
You seem to think that I feel somehow I've put myself in a position I don't like because I requested you explain your original nonsensical, quasi-intellectual blathering. This is silly. NO ONE would understand such self-satisfying collection of meaninglessness. Indeed, my request asking for trouble to begin with, not because you confound with logic and common sense, but because you confound with stupidity that YOU think is intelligence. THAT was the point of my asking for plain English as opposed to what you used originally, as well as the further pretense of intellect displayed in your more recent responses. It's almost sad how you expose yourself as the fake you are.
It really comes down to this: When you speak, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. This isn't a fault on my part, for people who really ARE intelligent make themselves crystal clear. You, on the other hand, are a babbling idiot.
If you have some point to make, please make it and spare me and my readers with your posturing. You don't impress, you bore. In fact, your ability to do so is about the only brilliant thing you've displayed in all the comments I've ever seen you post.
Now, you can call me any names you like. Childish taunts have no sting for me, particularly from those for whom I have so little respect. Like yourself, for instance. Perhaps after you're done stroking yourself, you might like to address the point of my post. I'll explain that point for you since I doubt your ability to distinguish it from all the other words on the page:
Does the use of racial epithets denote only racism? Said another way, does the use of racial epithets guarantee that the reason behind the use of such epithets can only be racist in nature?
If this is too much for you to ponder, just say so and go back to playing with yourself.
"Speaking of mirrors, how can you ever look into one and see that you are completely full of shit?"
Well, thanks for the bold confidence and compliment but I have to tell you that it does indeed happen sometimes.
"When you speak, I don't know what the hell you're talking about."
You've just written eight paragraphs that infer differently.
Again, you shadow box with furious statements that are all about misdirection. Nigger speak.
"Does the use of racial epithets denote only racism? Said another way, does the use of racial epithets guarantee that the reason behind the use of such epithets can only be racist in nature?"
In a word? Yes.
If one takes the time to understand what "epithet" means, that's the only answer. The word, "nIgger," when used as an epithet, denotes a racist reaction. When it functions as an epithet, that is the function it is serving.
It's simple when one knows anything about what words mean. Apparently that leaves you out.
Now, the word, "nigger," can be used in other ways. Say, as a mirror: nigger does not mean the other subject in mind of the user but rather the objects in the mind of the user. The word does not denote the "other" but rather connotes what is going on in the user's mind.
In this way, instead of "nigger" being an epithet, it is serving an analytical purpose. You, Marshall, are not a nigger because of the phenomenon of your speech or your behavior - in other words, you are not a nigger because of your public self or even private self. You are a nigger because the quality of your words, your behavior in print here, the presentation of your self connotes objects of hate and misprision, deception and misdirection, white lies and gray lies and black lies, envy, resentment, anger that is not passing normal emotions but well-treasured, fetishized, pocket safe.
You know, some the writers I get the most out of I have to reread a few times to get the whole breadth and depth of what they are saying. The write not to hand over things on a silver platter but to have the reader work for his or own knowledge's sake. Education works best when it works the same way, not delivering the goods simple, by rote. Students don't learn that way. People don't learn that way.
But you wouldn't know anything about these things, Marshall. You're a couch nigger.
"You know, some the writers I get the most out of I have to reread a few times to get the whole breadth and depth of what they are saying. The write not to hand over things on a silver platter but to have the reader work for his or own knowledge's sake."
Wow. I have to say, Feo, that kudos are definitely in order here. The above has to be the most creative justification of one's own stupidity I've yet come across. Only an arrogant putz who cannot accept his own limitations would rationalize his intellectual shortcomings in this manner. It must have really filled you with self-loathing to stumble over the words of a writer before you came up with this clap-trap. If you want to believe that anyone purposely tries to impart information cryptically in order to exercise the brain of the reader, risking having his messge totally lost in the process, well, you just go on and believe that, you incredibly sad and pathetic fraud. Yeah, it takes a towering intellect like yours to devine the lessons of major tomes, such as Curious George and The Three Bears. What a seasoned fake you are.
"It's simple when one knows anything about what words mean"
I'm well aware of what the word "epithet" means. But like all leftists, you change meanings to suit you. It merely means the use of one word in place of another, mostly in a disparaging manner. Nothing more, unless as a leftist, you're trying to make disparage an ideological opponent, then you distort the meaning for your own sordid purposes, such as your crap about using "nigger" in an analytical manner. See if any blacks you know, like your imaginary black wife (I don't believe any self-respecting woman would align herself with anyone such as yourself), would be cool with your psuedo-intellectual justification for calling me a "nigger". (Then come back here and lie to me by saying they're just fine with it.)
You fail in exposing any hatred on my part for anyone, likely mistaking as all lefty chuckleheads do, my hatred for stupid leftist positions. You fail in exposing any deceit or lies in my commentaries. You accuse me of all sorts of things for which you have yet to offer any shred of supporting evidence and project upon me all sorts of negative qualities I have never exhibited and certainly never intended.
But YOU, however, continue to bore, continue to obfuscate with meaningless wordy drivel meant to impress. The only impression is that you are a bore and a hopeless fraud lacking the ability to engage intelligently on issues discussed in this blog. For example, you last comment should have ended with this:
"In a word? Yes."
...because afterwards you'd said nothing noteworthy. Rather, you had carried on in the manner in which you had first introduced yourself, that as an arrogant, self-worshipping schmuck. It never ends with you. (And of course, now you pretend as if you first introduced yourself in a likeable individual, and are only returning in kind, which is a lie.)
More coming----
Now assuming you had denied yourself your little masturbation and left it at:
"In a word? Yes."
...I'll now respond by saying that you are again perpetuating racism by not recognizing the truth of Whoopie's position with which I agreed. That is, sometimes racial epithets are used in anger simply to hurt a specific individual as opposed to being an indication of some latent racist attitude within that angry person. When one is angry, it is often the goal to lash out and hurt the target of that anger. Intelligence being low when emotions are high (as opposed to your case when intelligence is low as a routine and chronic state), pointing to an obvious physical trait is easy. If the target is overweight, epithets derived from that condition would be used. These might include, "fat ass", "blubber butt", etc. If the target is of a particular race, then characteristics of that race will be used. But that doesn't in the least bit indicate, or automatically guarantee that the angry person bears any ill will toward all fat people or people of different races. It is lazy to believe so. It is frankly, a lie and in the case of lefty buffoons like yourself, a means by which to dismiss anything that the angry person might otherwise represent or support. The real issue might only be one of rage. Objective and rational people should see this easily. If one isn't familiar with the angry person, one might justifiably wonder if he is indeed a racist, but one can't point to an outburst and insist that the use of racial epithets is proof that the angry person is racist.
Another example would be my mocking you and then for you to believe I obviously have something against the mentally challenged. That would not be true. YOU are not mocked for being mentally challenged, but for how your defect manifests itself in your comments here and the way they seek to insist that you're the intellectual giant you so clearly are not. If not for your sorry attitude, I would pity you as I do all mentally challenged people. I wouldn't dare color them based on your behavior.
Real racism exists and likely always will in a fallen and corrupted world. This is no newsflash and is regretable to be sure. But those like yourself suffering from irrational white guilt do not see clearly enough to acknowledge when racism is present or not, or even from which direction it is coming.
YOU, for example are a racist. It is not because you call me a "nigger". No. That's just an example of your arrogant stupidity. You think that because you claim to be married to a black woman (I doubt you're married at all for reasons explained above) that you can make free use of the word. What an idiot!
No, you're a racist because of your white guilt that sees racism as an inherent trait of whites in general. By doing so you pay other races no true respect as equals because your white guilt indicates you feel they are at risk and need YOUR help in order to perservere in a white world. Nonsense. All people succeed on the basis of their own actions, drive and abilities; something known as "the content of their character". That's the basis upon which I judge my fellow man. YOUR character leaves much to be desired. MUCH.
This is what comes from reading Beck and Limbaugh and other brain killers: Marshall is more stupid than when he was in high school... assuming you went to high school, Marshall.
"If you want to believe that anyone purposely tries to impart information cryptically in order to exercise the brain of the reader, risking having his messge totally lost in the process, well, you just go on and believe that..."
At least in high school you knew that the whole genre of poetry, good poetry, cannot be "gotten" with one reading. I don't mean the "roses are red" variety, Marshall. I mean Frost and the Iliad, Yeats and Glück and Pasternak and Dante. I'm sure you remember some of them, Marshall. Beck and Limbaugh, try as they might, can't destroy Western Civilization's work even if they destroy civilization itself. Poetry is just such an artistic endeavor built on, as you would say, "imparting information cryptically."
So, too, at least in high school you were introduced to the idea that Shakespeare gets better with re-readings because he is too vast to get at any one age. So, too, does Shakespeare impart information cryptically.
Kids in high school today know that episodes of The Lost have to be seen and then seen again in order to get the whole, imparting, as they do, information cryptically.
In fact, you may have even stumbled on - blindly tripped by ignorance - one sort of definition of art itself: imparting information cryptically.
Other than these, it's clear you did not do a humanities degree, or at least not a rigorous one. In mid-century Europe, whole schools of philosophical thought wrote in a way that avoided closure, the clarity of conclusion that seduces one into thinking they have bottled truth. They wrote cryptically, incompletely because they felt that Western intellectual traditions of the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries had come to feel that Man had learned everything we needed to know in order o organize society and governments in a perfect enough way. They felt that such utter and complete confidence was the foundation of thinking that led, in progression to the abuses of power of imperialism, communism, and fascism. Entire families and whole peoples were sacrificed by regimes fed on supreme faith, supreme patriotism. supreme confidence all resting on bad intellectual surety.
By the way, and in order to save you from having to reread - these points apply to Beck, Limbaugh, and conservative fundamentalism. At bottom, this is problem with all fundamentalisms -- complete and utterly exclusive confidence that "we" and only "we" know the truth. Islamic, Christian, political fundamentalisms all are bankrupt from the start because of this.
So, there are all kinds of philosophical writers who "cryptically impart information."
And then there are essayists. Baldwin at the top. I had to reread Baldwin in order to get everything. And great novelists, too. We still reread Tolstoy and Proust and Twain, too. Because "There are more things in heaven and earth, [Marshall] Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Any really smart writer I have to reread. The joy deepens as I get more and more of the breadth of what they say.
Keep you Pooh books, Marshall. Those don't have to be reread.
But if I were you, I'd suggest at least rereading the Bible... you've just haven't gotten it yet. It's too large of heart, too large of subject, too complex of intentions and genres.
What is your simple, clear summary of Job, Marshall? Undoubtedly you've kept a Sunday School answer. And undoubtedly that is the kind of thing that keeps you in such an intellectual stupor with such a small, hardened heart.
God forbid that I should dumb down like that.
By the way, I've checked, and - given the shortness of time - so far every one I work with says you're a nigger. Yet to ask my wife. But I know her quite well. She's already said she's not interested in Whoopi's subjective defense of a friend. It just doesn't meet the objective case. Imagine that. Whoopi's not the Magic Negro you take her as. She's human. Go figure.
Given all this anything you have to write loses all credibility. You can't imagine the cryptic imparting of truth, even though, outside the comics and Beck and Limbaugh, the majority of writing does just that. And you've tried to make Whoopi Goldberg into a Magic Nigger because such a thing, in her case, serves your desires. Nothing new there. Mammy, whore, lucky rabbit's foot, you've done to a black woman what's been done for centuries by white men to black women.
For these reasons - not name calling - for clear reason... you're the true nigger, man. It's what goes on in the head of yours that makes it so.
This is what comes from assuming you're a deep thinker, Feo. Who the hell was talking about poetry? Who was talking about literary allegories and metaphors? I'm talking about debate, discussion, exchanging points of view. So all your name dropping serves only to prove your own dishonest nature, as you seek to prove something entirely irrelevant to what is going on here, since I gave no indication that I was speaking of various artforms. Must I relate it yet again, or wait until you re-read my comments, which are plain and straight forward? It went like this: I made a statement I believe to be true (which you have not in the least bit shown to be otherwise), and you responded with your typical nonsensical double-talk dripping with your usual arrogant condescension (always nice to be condescended to by a complete fool). I asked for you, as a favor to me, to challenge yourself by restating your point in a manner that resembles plain English. You further responded with more crap meant to impress and failed miserably. I do not speak in poetry or allegory. No one with or against whom I debate does so either. Everyone seeks to be understood. YOU seek to be thought of as something you're not. You do it by typing all manner of worthless crap that does not impress anyone but the imaginary friends in your head.
What good is it if someone wished to opine on the ins and outs of racism if no one understands, or worse, mistakes the point in a direction 180 degrees apart from what is intended? For the sake of art? While people suffer? Does that make sense even to such as yourself?
Moving on, your description of what mid-century Europeans intended by their writing style is meaningless because you have so often demonstrated a woeful inability to understand what you read. You certainly have no clue about Scripture as has been established exhaustively here. That you would hope to imply that such fault lies with me is laughable considering how poorly you've fared in Biblical discussions at this blog. False priests like yourself can't hope to succeed where rational people are free to read the Bible. That you think the Bible is complex is proof of your inabilities and shortcomings in understanding anything. The Bible was NOT written for intellectuals alone. It was written for all to read and understand. Only frauds like yourself who imagine themselves intellectuals have trouble with the plain teachings of God. It has to be complex in order to justify the lies intellectuals like you like to tell themselves.
"God forbid that I should dumb down like that."
I don't think you get any more stupid than you are. To "dumb down" like me (as you believe I am) would be a major step up for you.
"By the way, I've checked, and - given the shortness of time - so far every one I work with says you're a nigger."
Pardon me if I'm not impressed. I doubt the others who clean toilets with you have been told the situation as it happened, are fully informed of my position or worse, they aren't any brighter than you are. Assuming you actually discussed it properly with anyone, and they agreed with you, then it is obvious that they are every bit the small minded, pathetic creature you are.
For someone who likes to pretend to be so deep and intellectual, that you think so simplemindedly on this subject betrays your overconfident self-stroking image of yourself. The Bible, you say is, how did you say it? "...too large of heart, too large of subject, too complex of intentions and genres." But THIS, the workings of the human mind, are just so cut and dried that YOU can determine the whole of a person by his lack of tact during times of high emotion. It's a joke that you can't see the irony here. This alone should scream at you that you're no where near as smart as you like to pretend you are. That it doesn't embarrass you confirms your sociopathic self worship. That it doesn't shame you proves the level of corruption within you.
As for your imaginary wife, she is obviously as narrow-minded as you. Not interested in Whoopie's defense of a friend? Well who better than a friend of another race to speak on the level of Gibson's racism, should he be racist to any degree? But no, she, like you, makes up her mind and judges in a manner Scripture prohibits. She must be one of those sorry members of the American black population that sees herself as a victim waiting for whitey to get his comeuppance. And she then goes and marries a white chucklehead wallowing in white guilt and ready to patronize her. I feel so sorry for such people who live their lives under that cloud.
As for Whoopie herself, I've attached nothing to her aside from a rational understanding in this case. No magic, no elevation of her otherwise questionable political perceptions. I don't consider her fault free because she makes one good point on the issue of race. It surprised me to hear it to some extent. So I didn't make Whoopie into anything. It's just nice to hear such sensible talk about race from someone so leftist. Conservative blacks don't have such hangups about each utterance of a racial remark. They're more grown up and mature than the liberal blacks, which is about as "DUH!" as any statement can be, as it's so true of all people.
So you can continue projecting falsehoods about me all you want. I don't expect better from someone like you who is so filled with himself. As usual, you've shown you're way too busy trying to be smart to see how the world really works. You're a fraud.
All those books...all that education... what an incredible waste of it all you've turned out to be.
Just a short point:
Shakespeare didn't write intentionally cryptic. He wrote in the vernacular of his age. In other words, that is the way people wrote and spoke in Medieval England. I'm sure people in 16th and 17th century England understood Shakespeare without having to re-read his writings over and over.
Feodor, on the other hand, writes cryptically intentionally in an obvious attempt to prove to everyone that he is somehow more intelligent that they are.
The problem is, his all too obtuse metaphors don't work. In his attempts to convince everyone else that he possesses vastly more intelligence than the rest of us, his obtuseness only demonstrates that he is disrespectful, boorish, elitist, condescending, and just plain snobby. He ends up looking like a fool.
Picture Norm Crosby with his famous malapropisms. That's how Feodor comes across. Even if Feodor is more intelligent than the average person, all he does by trying to prove it is annoy everyone else.
Nobody likes a smart ass.
That's why Feodor is disliked by all but the most easily fooled. (Liberals)
"I doubt the others who clean toilets with you have been told the situation as it happened, are fully informed of my position or worse, they aren't any brighter than you are. Assuming you actually discussed it properly with anyone, and they agreed with you, then it is obvious that they are every bit the small minded, pathetic creature you are."
Or, perhaps they know if they disagree with him, he will assault them with his incessant obtuse metaphorical rantings and ravings until they meekly agree with him just to shut him up.
I can picture it now..."Yeah, yeah, Feodor, you're right. Now please shut the f**k up! I'm trying to work here!"
And, they probably don't even know to what they are agreeing.
And then Feodor runs to his computer to tell Art that all his co-workers agree with him.
Meanwhile they are all conspiring, in their minds, at least, to murder him and do unspeakable things to his corpse.
Well, Mark, whether Bill S. wrote is plays in a purposely cryptic manner, or simply employed a style of prose common at the time, I think a larger point needs exposure. That one needs to read a given text multiple times to glean its meaning hardly indicates that the author intended his work to be a tough read. Indeed, Feodor isn't the only one who believes that cryptic writing projects higher intelligence. In fact, it's a common ploy of the average school kid to scam a better grade when the kid suffers from the belief his thoughts are not intelligent enough on its own merits to warrant a good grade. In Feo's case, he NEEDS the author to be cryptic as a salve for his fear that he isn't smart enough to grasp the meaning. He can't stand the fact that he might not get it, so he chooses to believe he wasn't meant to get it the first time around, as if it is an indication of one's own mental shortcomings.
I, on the other hand, do not suffer from such conceits. I'm sure you don't either, nor do most people. I don't feel inferior due to the complexity or unfamiliarity of the subject matter, should such be a bit of a stumper. Feodor does, apparently. But we need to cut him some slack because he's such a pathetic fraud. (And BTW, I'm considering waving my rule against one visitor slamming another with name calling when Feodor is the target. He's sure worked so hard to earn it. Just wait until I decide one way or the other.)
Can a re-reading bring clarification? Of course it can. But is it the purpose of the average writer to confound the reader with cryptic writing? To be fair, highly doubtful. Sure, there must be some who take pleasure in such pursuits. Don't know that they sell too many books. What's absolutely true is that the Biblical authors were NOT trying to do that. False priests just don't understand Scripture, or worse, false priests can't abide its message. Feodor is a false priest.
The evidence that Feodor doesn't understand the Bible is in the fact that he thinks it is complicated.
If it was written so few could comprehend it, only the highly intelligent could become Christians.
God's message is simple. And so is Feodor.
Shhh, quiet! George and Lennie are talking.
"that is the way people wrote and spoke in Medieval England...
"Really?"
"Really! Yep. They all spoke in three four-line stanzas called quatrains ending with a couplet in iambic pentameter."
"No!"
Yep, and, seems really odd today but their vernacular always had this rhyme scheme, see. It went abab cdcd efef gg. Ain't that a hoot?"
"Yeah, sure is. Good thing we don't have to do that, I'd never get that down. You say those were medieval days?"
"Yep."
"Uh, what years were those?"
"Uhmm. Long ago. You know, 13 something."
"Who the hell was talking about poetry? Who was talking about literary allegories and metaphors?"
I was: "You know, some the writers I get the most out of I have to reread a few times to get the whole breadth and depth of what they are saying."
This came before you sought "to prove something entirely irrelevant to what" I was talking about.
So, all that drivel you went through complaining and mudslinging about idiocy... is all about you.
Your'e a nigger -- no name calling -- because of things going on in your heard. The motivations, the deceptions, the lies to yourself. You're the nigger.
So, you guys don't reread the Bible, huh?
Well, in my church I guess we are just more biblically rooted than both you.
George and Lennie: what does Job mean?
Or the Song of Solomon?
Based on your one and only reading?
LOL...that's hilarious.
""Who the hell was talking about poetry? Who was talking about literary allegories and metaphors?"
I was:"
But you don't count. When the question was asked, it referred to the original question of what the hell you're talking about, not some nonsensical and cryptic response to that question, you twit. Your answer about how some people write poetry is absolutely irrelevant and only less so than you are.
And do you really think you're provoking some kind of emotional response (other than abject pity for your pathetic condition) by continuing to call me a "nigger"? Did you miss where I mentioned that such things have no effect on me?
Only you would try to pretend that anyone meant that people spoke "in three four-line stanzas called quatrains ending with a couplet in iambic pentameter." What a sorry attempt at insult, again exposing yourself for the pathetic fraud you are. Try again, Bucky.
"Well, in my church I guess we are just more biblically rooted than both you."
That's never been demonstrated in ANY of your comments. All you've done is prove what a false priest you truly are. You'll have to do a whole lot of back peddling to erase all that history. But repentance is something anyone can achieve, with the exception of those prideful, arrogant and self-stroking psuedo-intellectuals, like yourself. But I have hope for even one as low as a slug like you.
Now, would you like to get back to the point of the post, or continue failing to impress anyone? I'm more than willing to listen to your, I'm sure, incredibly twisted justification for the stupid assumption that the mere utterance of a racial epithet denotes abject racism in the person who does the uttering. You seem to have run, like the coward you are, from that discussion. Bring it, woman.
You're the one always choosing the alleys. I'm always showing you how blind they are.
So, I'll take your abrupt turning back as a cryptically encoded, admission that you blew it about Shakespeare; that you blew it about denying the best and most enjoyable writing is often the kind that challenges the reader; and blew it by throwing in with Lennie who doesn't know his middle ages from his rabbits.
As for the word, "nigger," and its possible use as a way into the white mind, thanks to yourself it's more than just me now who think of you that way. To be sure, though, by now my colleagues have quickly rid themselves of what I put them through, having better things than that stuck on the bottoms of their subway seats. But, again, the word is a word whites constructed -- and then kept -- for manifold reasons all having to do with making unconscious what they were thinking about and doing to another group of human beings. It served to make guild unconscious and to project the unconsciously gathered outward, to make it seem real in the world in order not only to be not guilty but to be right: "niggers there be because I've seen them just like I heard tell and thought about them."
In short, the word nigger connotes guilt ridden objects and the associations between those objects that exist only in the white mind.
As to your blather, the word, "nigger" is to fatso and dumbo what lynching is to a playground fight.
Yeah, it's related, I suppose. If you want to make that point. If you're a four year old. Or if you're the kind of person not able to make more appropriately complex reasoning of the situation.
If you're lIke Lennie. Out on day's pass from the asylum, looking for his rabbits.
Who are you kidding? You don't have "colleagues". The voices in your head don't count.
You couldn't be more blind if I jammed pencils in your eyes. This is evident by your projection of blindness upon me. I see clearly and I know a fraud when one visits my blog. Hi, Fraud! But I run from nothing and return to the topic at hand because that's what this post is about. If you wish to discuss other topics, discuss them at your own blog and perhaps actual people will read it and comment. (They'll likely say, "What the hell is this idiot trying to say? Why doesn't he just talk like a normal human being?") In the meantime, no one's blown anything regarding Shakespeare except for you, by thinking you were scoring points. What a sad, pathetic putz you truly are. I grieve for your imaginary wife and kid.
As for anyone with whom you claim to have spoken, I'm sure they care little for much but the cheap wine in their paper bags. Their opinions aren't worth much more than yours, but I'm betting they're much more plainly and courageously stated.
I fully understand the origins of the slang word "nigger". Your attempt to inform me is another sad exercise in self-stroking. And any suggestion by you that you could possibly find your way out of your own bathroom (where you do your best exercising), much less into ANYONE's mind is hysterical.
But as usual, nothing you've said addresses the question at hand. Why does the use of the word mean ONLY that the user is racist. For if it is so, as I think you are in your convoluted manner trying to suggest, than it is equally true of yourself. But then, I guess you take your imaginary marriage to a black woman as license to use the word toward whomever you choose for whatever reason makes sense to your addled mind. I'll bet that pleases her no end.
So in the spirit of the fun I'm having watching you continue to expose yourself for the fool you are, why is it that you believe "the word nigger connotes guilt ridden objects and the associations between those objects that exist only in the white mind."
What's a "guilt ridden object"? And what if the white mind harbors no sense of guilt about the plight of the black race, particularly if he, nor anyone of his ancestors has had anything to do with inflicting suffering upon them or anyone else? Are you seriously suggesting that all whites harbor such guilt or should? The laughs just keep on comin'!
"...the word, "nigger" is to fatso and dumbo what lynching is to a playground fight."
Say that to a fat dude who grew up being teased, ignored and left out due to his weight issues. You obviously are so sick with white guilt that you believe no one suffers like a black man, regardless of the life experiences of that black man. Furthermore, I wasn't comparing the terms. I was comparing the situation of a given individual being pissed at another and how the pissed off guy will key on the most obvious characteristic of the other in order to level a hurtful word in his direction. Are you that stupid as to not get that? If that other guy is a fat dude, than by your way of thinking, the pissed off dude has always harbored a prejudice against all fat people. Yeah, that makes perfect sense! You're a freakin' trip, Feo. All those books. All that education and you are one of the stupidest people I've ever come across.
You really think I write to you, Marshall? No, I don't write to you.
Lennie: "Shakespeare didn't write intentionally cryptic. He wrote in the vernacular of his age. In other words, that is the way people wrote and spoke in Medieval England."
Iachimo: "Thanks, fairest lady.
What, are men mad? Hath nature given them eyes
To see this vaulted arch, and the rich crop
Of sea and land, which can distinguish 'twixt
The fiery orbs above and the twinn'd stones
Upon the number'd beach? and can we not
Partition make with spectacles so precious
'Twixt fair and foul?
It cannot be i' the eye, for apes and monkeys
'Twixt two such shes would chatter this way and
Contemn with mows the other; nor i' the judgment,
For idiots in this case of favour would
Be wisely definite; nor i' the appetite;
Sluttery to such neat excellence opposed
Should make desire vomit emptiness,
Not so allured to feed. The cloyed will,
That satiate yet unsatisfied desire, that tub
Both fill'd and running, ravening first the lamb
Longs after for the garbage."
Don't worry, Marshall. Imogen didn't get it either.
LOL! Hey Feodor, don't you remember we've seen this movie before?
It wasn't that long ago when you attempted to impress us by copy and pasting Shakespeare. It didn't impress us then and it doesn't impress us now. Really, your pathetic attempts to stun us with your brilliance falls utterly flat, considering that the dumbest Liberal in existence knows how to copy and paste, too.
He knows who he is.
I don't know who Lennie is but William Shakespeare was born in the 1500's and lived into the early 1600's. Not the 1300's.
"But, but, but....the medieval ages were in the 1300's" you will stammer. Yes I know.
Watch. I can copy and paste, too:
Ha! Whare ye gaun, ye crowlin ferlie?
Your impudence protects you sairly,
I canna say but ye strut rarely
Owre gauze and lace,
Tho' faith! I fear ye dine but sparely
On sic a place.
Ye ugly, creepin, blastit wonner,
Detested, shunn'd by saunt an' sinner,
How daur ye set your fit upon her --
Sae fine a lady!
Gae somewhere else and seek your dinner
On some poor body.
Swith! in some beggar's hauffet squattle:
There you may creep, and sprawl, and spr
Wi' ither kindred, jumping cattle,
In shoals and nations;
Whare horn nor bane ne'er daur unsettle
Your thick plantations.
Now haud you there! ye're out o' sight,
Below the fatt'rils, snug an' tight;
Na, faith ye yet! ye'll no be right,
Till ye've got on it ---
The vera tapmost, tow'ring height
O' miss's bonnet.
My sooth! right bauld ye set your nose ou
As plump an' grey as onie grozet:
O for some rank, mercurial rozet,
Or fell, red smeddum,
I'd gie ye sic a hearty dose o't,
Wad dress your droddum!
I wad na been surpris'd to spy
You on an auld wife's flainen toy:
Or aiblins some bit duddie boy,
On's wyliecoat;
But Miss's fine Lunardi! fye!
How daur ye do't.
O Jenny, dinna toss your head,
An' set your beauties a' abread!
You little ken what cursed speed
The blastie's makin!
Thae winks an' finger-ends, I dread,
Are notice takin'!
O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
An' ev'n devotion!
And I knew what it meant the first time I read it.
Would you like me to interpret it for you?
I thought not.
Just caught it. In the third stanza, the word that was cut off is "sprattle". I know that from memory, Feodor.
And no, the poem isn't about you, Feodor. Lice have more integrity than you.
And in the 5th stanza, first line last word is "out".
I don't know why the website I copied it from cut these words off.
Feodor, you might take that last stanza to heart. It would from many a blunder free you, and foolish notion.
Mark, Mark, satire is lost to thee.
It's not sprattle you know from heart, Mark, it's spittle.
You wouldn't know satire if it walked up to you and spit in your face.
You already mentioned Mark Williams. Didn't you know his letter to Lincoln was a satire? No, of course you didn't. You don't know satire.
Oh, and the word, "nigger" is an intentional insult to the black race, a word originally derived from the proper word, "Negro" which comes from the word, "Negroid", which along with the words "Mongoloid" and "Caucasion" used to be words that defines the different races recognizable by their color, type of hair, and facial features. Sort of like how the old west cowboys and calvary troops referred to what was known as Indians as "injuns", and how we now refer to pretentious elitist morons as "Feodor".
Gawd...you guys are soooooo hilarious. I have had more fun today reading this thread. I've laughed so hard my cheeks hurt.
"derived from the proper word, 'Negro'"
Lennie you are as clear as a crystal bell.
"You really think I write to you, Marshall? No, I don't write to you."
I see. You write here not to me, but you post comments here because no one reads YOUR blog. That makes sense. It's pathetic, but it makes sense.
Hey, Mark. (Or should I say "Lennie"? Damn. Can I be Lennie?") Did you notice how Feodork cuts and pastes one of the lesser known Shakespearean plays in order to seem more intellectual? I haven't read the play (or any Shakespeare since I was a kid), but I wonder what he finds so cryptic about it? Billy Shakes IS on my "authors to read" list, but I'm way too busy with Dr. Suess right now.
Marty,
I'm glad you're getting some yucks. Like Limbaugh, Levin and others on the right, I don't feel the need to be all serious when discussing most issues.
I have to say, I'm having a blast. Feo's like having a pet monkey. He likes to play with himself and throw poop around and pretend it's wisdom. But he's really a harmless pathetic twit who only thinks he's wise. As I like to say regarding him, he's read all those books and received all that education and he is no smarter for the trouble. It would be sad if he wasn't such an arrogant ass. Since he is, he's perfect for mockery. I'm glad he's here.
If you're a prick, we do not bleed.
Post a Comment