Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[Hairy Lime]

You don't read very well or have poor recollection.

Some here do in fact see any and all here who are Republican as racist.

Only those still willing to support republican candidates and or work for the consolidation or expansion of republican power at the expense of freedom and opportunity through actual or stochastic terrorism.

That wouldn’t be you though. You should be better than that by now.

Maybe it is luck of the draw. I have a lot of Republican friends IRL who are not racist.

[bambu.]

Hey,
American royalty could be coming downunder for a while...in the form of Caroline Kennedy as US Ambassador.
Cool. We deserve nothing less.

[Hamilton Samuels]

And Holly

That said, I see no wrong in being awakened to genuine areas of social injustice and realizing you want to speak out against them. 

I agree, the key word is genuine.

IMO there is little to be gained by pointing guilty fingers at people who laughed 10 years ago at what are now politically incorrect jokes, or fire 20 somethings for a twitter post made as a teen-ager, or censor movies made 50 years ago.
Or spouting stupid slogans like "defund police" that only will retard real social progress by pissing off mostly decent voters who are tired of the woke bullshit, who will say, "fuck them all" and stay home.

I could give you a more pointed example, but seeing as you're new here, I will restrain my self-righteous bullshit.

Well now, everything has excess. Id est quod est.

The one thing I would point out is that things like movies and books and jokes still have the power of immediate experience. Which includes the power to hurt and extend negative stereotypes and pointing out issues with, say, Gone With the Wind, or some of Dr. Seuss's work, or - God knows I am a committed Marxist of the Grouchoian sort but - A Day at the Races serves a current purpose.

I remember the first time I saw Duck Soup, a classic, one of the greatest comedies ever made, or first time as somewhat woke, and heard the "Armstrong" joke, my jaw dropped, but I laughed.

The scene should be deleted, or the movie banned.

As a personal aside I was scarred for life reading The Merchant of Venice.

There probably should be a warning on that book too.

Same with Dicken's Oliver Twist.

Right?

I am not for outright bans or changes in artistic vision, but if the copyright holder wants to cease publishing or showing the work, that is their right. But yes, warnings for offensive content or trying to restrict access is advisable on occasion.

As an example, there is a Steven Vincent Benet poem called American Names that I recalled enjoying. I was trying to recall the last lines (Roughly, You can bury my body in the Sussex grass, You can bury my tongue at Chalmendly[that is what I needed to look up, some place in France], I shall not be there, I shall rise and pass. Bury my heart at Wounded Knee). It was not in my recent copy of The Oxford Book of American Poetry, so I looked it up in the older edition I had inherited from my grandmother. And was appalled. I think excluding it from published compilations is right. But that does not extend to condemning Dee Brown for using a line as a title.

Or to put it another way, banks, there are legitimate issues with the potential excess in trying to point out racist relics of the past, and it is a legitimate discussion. But as with "political correctness" before it, "cancel culture" (or SJW or "woke") have been used by racists like Uno to try to silence people who point out their racism. Uno uses it to try to bully people into silence about racism. But pointing out racism is not silencing anyone. It is a legitimate part of the dialog. Uno is free to spew his racism; I am free to call him on it.

When thumb typing "l" is highly problematic.

Hamilton/UNO/Utley etc.. practices the age old racial jiu jitsu of dog whistle politics as described by Ian Haney-Lopez

The punch, parry kick technique

(1) punch racism into the conversation through references to culture, behavior, and class;

(2) parry claims of race-baiting by insisting that absent a direct reference to biology or the use of a racial epithet, there can be no racism;

(3) kick up the racial attack by calling any critics the real racists for mentioning race and thereby "playing the race card."

The woke rules for "indict the white":

1) all blacks and all wokes can not be racist.

2) all whites all the time are responsible for all black folks' problems all the time; anyone who disagrees with that premise in any way is a racist

3) whites who disagree with any aspect of our stated grievances or our proposed solutions to solve their racism will remain racists forever

4) give us money

5) give us more money

6) work hard to be offended each and every day in order to keep racism alive

7) give us more money

[LarryBnDC]

If banks and I are in sync on an issue, then you know that there is a real problem that needs to be addressed.

Yup. Fragile whiteness.

We’re not wasting horses or men putting you back together.

The thing about a good egg like you is there’s no telling where the head ends and the big big ass begins.

Another example of the racist and dismissive nature of the arrogant woke. 

Anyone who thinks that banks and I are "fragile" has apparently a less than firm grip on reality.

Oh, irony.

I RON EE!

[Hamilton Samuels]

Joe Biden’s speech in Tulsa is going BIG and BOLD!

"We must not give hate a safe harbor."--Joe Biden

And yet, you routinely do just that.

[facilitatorn]

Tricky stuff this woke shit.

Not really. A heavy 3-4 year dose of 1619 curriculum for all students before tossing them into the heavier canonical controversies should do the trick.

Getting Sankofa in before long division is probably vital as well.

http://www.berea.edu/cgwc/the-power-of-sankofa/

Take it to your local school board and, with any luck, there will be more well educated people to take care of you in your old age.

There’s no time like the present to review the situation and think it out again.
 

[LarryBnDC]

You don't read very well or have poor recollection.

Some here do in fact see any and all here who are Republican as racist.

Only those still willing to support republican candidates and or work for the consolidation or expansion of republican power at the expense of freedom and opportunity through actual or stochastic terrorism.

That wouldn’t be you though. You should be better than that by now.

Maybe it is luck of the draw. I have a lot of Republican friends IRL who are not racist.

Why do they support GOP racist policies?

All these laws being shoved through for “voter integrity” aren’t based in racism?

The BIG LIE about stolen elections is pure d. racist.

[LarryBnDC]

And Holly

That said, I see no wrong in being awakened to genuine areas of social injustice and realizing you want to speak out against them. 

I agree, the key word is genuine.

IMO there is little to be gained by pointing guilty fingers at people who laughed 10 years ago at what are now politically incorrect jokes, or fire 20 somethings for a twitter post made as a teen-ager, or censor movies made 50 years ago.
Or spouting stupid slogans like "defund police" that only will retard real social progress by pissing off mostly decent voters who are tired of the woke bullshit, who will say, "fuck them all" and stay home.

I could give you a more pointed example, but seeing as you're new here, I will restrain my self-righteous bullshit.

Well now, everything has excess. Id est quod est.

The one thing I would point out is that things like movies and books and jokes still have the power of immediate experience. Which includes the power to hurt and extend negative stereotypes and pointing out issues with, say, Gone With the Wind, or some of Dr. Seuss's work, or - God knows I am a committed Marxist of the Grouchoian sort but - A Day at the Races serves a current purpose.

I remember the first time I saw Duck Soup, a classic, one of the greatest comedies ever made, or first time as somewhat woke, and heard the "Armstrong" joke, my jaw dropped, but I laughed.

The scene should be deleted, or the movie banned.

As a personal aside I was scarred for life reading The Merchant of Venice.

There probably should be a warning on that book too.

Same with Dicken's Oliver Twist.

Right?

I am not for outright bans or changes in artistic vision, but if the copyright holder wants to cease publishing or showing the work, that is their right. But yes, warnings for offensive content or trying to restrict access is advisable on occasion.

As an example, there is a Steven Vincent Benet poem called American Names that I recalled enjoying. I was trying to recall the last lines (Roughly, You can bury my body in the Sussex grass, You can bury my tongue at Chalmendly[that is what I needed to look up, some place in France], I shall not be there, I shall rise and pass. Bury my heart at Wounded Knee). It was not in my recent copy of The Oxford Book of American Poetry, so I looked it up in the older edition I had inherited from my grandmother. And was appalled. I think excluding it from published compilations is right. But that does not extend to condemning Dee Brown for using a line as a title.

Or to put it another way, banks, there are legitimate issues with the potential excess in trying to point out racist relics of the past, and it is a legitimate discussion. But as with "political correctness" before it, "cancel culture" (or SJW or "woke") have been used by racists like Uno to try to silence people who point out their racism. Uno uses it to try to bully people into silence about racism. But pointing out racism is not silencing anyone. It is a legitimate part of the dialog. Uno is free to spew his racism; I am free to call him on it.

When thumb typing "l" is highly problematic.

Hamilton/UNO/Utley etc.. practices the age old racial jiu jitsu of dog whistle politics as described by Ian Haney-Lopez

The punch, parry kick technique

(1) punch racism into the conversation through references to culture, behavior, and class;

(2) parry claims of race-baiting by insisting that absent a direct reference to biology or the use of a racial epithet, there can be no racism;

(3) kick up the racial attack by calling any critics the real racists for mentioning race and thereby "playing the race card."

The woke rules for "indict the white":

1) all blacks and all wokes can not be racist.

2) all whites all the time are responsible for all black folks' problems all the time; anyone who disagrees with that premise in any way is a racist

3) whites who disagree with any aspect of our stated grievances or our proposed solutions to solve their racism will remain racists forever

4) give us money

5) give us more money

6) work hard to be offended each and every day in order to keep racism alive

7) give us more money

You are EXHIBIT A entered into evidence that a RACIST HIT DOG WILL HOLLER.

[bankshot1]

And Holly

That said, I see no wrong in being awakened to genuine areas of social injustice and realizing you want to speak out against them. 

I agree, the key word is genuine.

IMO there is little to be gained by pointing guilty fingers at people who laughed 10 years ago at what are now politically incorrect jokes, or fire 20 somethings for a twitter post made as a teen-ager, or censor movies made 50 years ago.
Or spouting stupid slogans like "defund police" that only will retard real social progress by pissing off mostly decent voters who are tired of the woke bullshit, who will say, "fuck them all" and stay home.

I could give you a more pointed example, but seeing as you're new here, I will restrain my self-righteous bullshit.

Well now, everything has excess. Id est quod est.

The one thing I would point out is that things like movies and books and jokes still have the power of immediate experience. Which includes the power to hurt and extend negative stereotypes and pointing out issues with, say, Gone With the Wind, or some of Dr. Seuss's work, or - God knows I am a committed Marxist of the Grouchoian sort but - A Day at the Races serves a current purpose.

I remember the first time I saw Duck Soup, a classic, one of the greatest comedies ever made, or first time as somewhat woke, and heard the "Armstrong" joke, my jaw dropped, but I laughed.

The scene should be deleted, or the movie banned.

As a personal aside I was scarred for life reading The Merchant of Venice.

There probably should be a warning on that book too.

Same with Dicken's Oliver Twist.

Right?

I am not for outright bans or changes in artistic vision, but if the copyright holder wants to cease publishing or showing the work, that is their right. But yes, warnings for offensive content or trying to restrict access is advisable on occasion.

Don't Jew me, boz.

The works of Shakespeare or Dickens are public domain so copyright isn't an issue.

The question remains should centuries old demonization of Jews, and arguably the most visible villains in classic English lit, come with a warning of its anti-semitism?

Or should students along with teachers and other adults be able to read what they choose and discuss it in whatever manner best suits them, without a Cliff Notes p-c guide telling them how to feel?


If you prick us...

Jew you? Did I miss something? Yes, what i said would apply to Merchant - and to Shrew, for that matter - as well as Dickens. I can understand not including them, but in a way it is like Huck Finn. We cannot really excise things like Shakespeare or Dickens, Huck or Gatsby from the Canon. They exist, they have an importance that transcends their problematic nature. That does not preclude recognizing the issues and identifying them.

I don't think your two questions are contradictory options. Yes, we can warn readers of potentially problematic content. And yes, they are free to read, discuss and draw conclusions about that content.

Oh - and the copyright comment was a reference to the Dr. Seuss controversy, not for every instance. I mentioned American Names, which is also out of copyright. In those instances, publishers are free ro drop them from omnibusses if they choose.

It was a TIC reference to an answer you seemed to want to negotiate.  We Jews are famous for negotiating better terms, as well as money lending and running gangs of thieves in London. .

I think your answer touches on the problem of what is problematic and what should be flagged to have a a warning. Who makes the call? You seem to sort of be on the waffling on warnings on old classics, written by Dickens Twain etc.

What about new artistic work?

Would it potentially have a censorship effect if for example a writer was told that scene with Atticus talking about a black man raping a white woman will have to carry a warning, and it might effect sales. Might the author rewrite the chapter?

Tricky stuff this woke shit.

TIC? Tender Incoming Care? Take Imelda's Chowdah? Tomasz Ivanovich Czrchinskl? Help.

Tongue in cheek, been using it for a gazillion years. I think I invented the use of TIC on the internet.

Well, that makes it your second most useful coinage, right after Our Lady of the Perpetual Tie.

The conversations on this forum remind me of the time, over in the College Football forum, I goaded Cap into a prolonged argument for the dual purposes of: a. Seeing how many times I could get him to say, "I'll let you have the last word" before he let me have the last word (apparently, infinite) and, under the dire influence of The Third Policeman, to see how many interior boxes inside interior boxes inside interior boxes the forum software could support before it went kablooey. (Also, apparently, infinite)

If someone offers me the last word I take it and then wait for them to respond. It generally happens about 99% of the time.

In any case you want the last word (HEH) on possible censorship of art within the context of warnings?

[LarryBnDC]

The dropping of American Names (ha) is sort of disturbing,  since some of its poetic perspective is that blacks and indigenous people are at the heart of American culture and the writer wishes to be with them and share their visions.   The use of the N-word ("to sing me blues") is an artifact of that time,  and not Benet being a racist.  Sure,  a note to that effect could be attached,  but isn't pretty much a majority of lit from the 19th century containing archaic usages that are understood as such?   What's wrong with teaching context generally and letting students figure out context and tone?

Well, my occasional attempt at a reasoned defense of Huck Finn is that the character would hardly be expected to refer to Jim in any other way. But the word remains offensive in any context.

The epithet is key to the context of the story.
Remains one my favorites.

[Hairy Lime]

And Holly

That said, I see no wrong in being awakened to genuine areas of social injustice and realizing you want to speak out against them. 

I agree, the key word is genuine.

IMO there is little to be gained by pointing guilty fingers at people who laughed 10 years ago at what are now politically incorrect jokes, or fire 20 somethings for a twitter post made as a teen-ager, or censor movies made 50 years ago.
Or spouting stupid slogans like "defund police" that only will retard real social progress by pissing off mostly decent voters who are tired of the woke bullshit, who will say, "fuck them all" and stay home.

I could give you a more pointed example, but seeing as you're new here, I will restrain my self-righteous bullshit.

Well now, everything has excess. Id est quod est.

The one thing I would point out is that things like movies and books and jokes still have the power of immediate experience. Which includes the power to hurt and extend negative stereotypes and pointing out issues with, say, Gone With the Wind, or some of Dr. Seuss's work, or - God knows I am a committed Marxist of the Grouchoian sort but - A Day at the Races serves a current purpose.

I remember the first time I saw Duck Soup, a classic, one of the greatest comedies ever made, or first time as somewhat woke, and heard the "Armstrong" joke, my jaw dropped, but I laughed.

The scene should be deleted, or the movie banned.

As a personal aside I was scarred for life reading The Merchant of Venice.

There probably should be a warning on that book too.

Same with Dicken's Oliver Twist.

Right?

I am not for outright bans or changes in artistic vision, but if the copyright holder wants to cease publishing or showing the work, that is their right. But yes, warnings for offensive content or trying to restrict access is advisable on occasion.

As an example, there is a Steven Vincent Benet poem called American Names that I recalled enjoying. I was trying to recall the last lines (Roughly, You can bury my body in the Sussex grass, You can bury my tongue at Chalmendly[that is what I needed to look up, some place in France], I shall not be there, I shall rise and pass. Bury my heart at Wounded Knee). It was not in my recent copy of The Oxford Book of American Poetry, so I looked it up in the older edition I had inherited from my grandmother. And was appalled. I think excluding it from published compilations is right. But that does not extend to condemning Dee Brown for using a line as a title.

Or to put it another way, banks, there are legitimate issues with the potential excess in trying to point out racist relics of the past, and it is a legitimate discussion. But as with "political correctness" before it, "cancel culture" (or SJW or "woke") have been used by racists like Uno to try to silence people who point out their racism. Uno uses it to try to bully people into silence about racism. But pointing out racism is not silencing anyone. It is a legitimate part of the dialog. Uno is free to spew his racism; I am free to call him on it.

When thumb typing "l" is highly problematic.

Hamilton/UNO/Utley etc.. practices the age old racial jiu jitsu of dog whistle politics as described by Ian Haney-Lopez

The punch, parry kick technique

(1) punch racism into the conversation through references to culture, behavior, and class;

(2) parry claims of race-baiting by insisting that absent a direct reference to biology or the use of a racial epithet, there can be no racism;

(3) kick up the racial attack by calling any critics the real racists for mentioning race and thereby "playing the race card."

The woke rules for "indict the white":

1) all blacks and all wokes can not be racist.

2) all whites all the time are responsible for all black folks' problems all the time; anyone who disagrees with that premise in any way is a racist

3) whites who disagree with any aspect of our stated grievances or our proposed solutions to solve their racism will remain racists forever

4) give us money

5) give us more money

6) work hard to be offended each and every day in order to keep racism alive

7) give us more money

A pretty fair recap of some of the things you post that help others recognize you as a racist.

[Hairy Lime]

The dropping of American Names (ha) is sort of disturbing,  since some of its poetic perspective is that blacks and indigenous people are at the heart of American culture and the writer wishes to be with them and share their visions.   The use of the N-word ("to sing me blues") is an artifact of that time,  and not Benet being a racist.  Sure,  a note to that effect could be attached,  but isn't pretty much a majority of lit from the 19th century containing archaic usages that are understood as such?   What's wrong with teaching context generally and letting students figure out context and tone?

Well, my occasional attempt at a reasoned defense of Huck Finn is that the character would hardly be expected to refer to Jim in any other way. But the word remains offensive in any context.

The epithet is key to the context of the story.
Remains one my favorites.

The greatest novel ever written by a native born American.

[facilitatorn]

Joe Biden’s speech in Tulsa is going BIG and BOLD!

"We must not give hate a safe harbor."--Joe Biden

And yet, you routinely do just that.

You can’t hate mold spores, plague rats, forest fires, sudden freezes, plant blights and the like. Republicans and their klannish authoritarianism are much the same.

You should work very seriously to control things you don’t hate to mitigate the danger they pose so multitudes of people you know and you don’t can go about living better lives shrouded in a little less pointless oppression and constant fear.

Just because I don’t hate cancer doesn’t mean I should leave it in my body if I find it there.

[Hamilton Samuels]

Well if I was teaching Henry Miller in a lit class,  I would probably point out that cunt is offensive but also that some literary tropes involve deliberate offense.   It's my hope that students,  at the college level anyway and maybe HS,  can get to where they are sorting out their personal discomfort and not taking offense at the study of literature.  Or language that,  for the sake of art,  goes off the rails.   

Banks,  I agree the possibility of censorship looms over all artistic expression where an ethos says characters or images  cannot transgress in certain ways, and cause discomfort.   A lot of great artists have aimed to make audiences uncomfortable.  What I often can't tell is where a benign warning turns into censorship.   When I was a teenager,  any warnings on books were more like eyeball magnets.   :-)

Art: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPRgUhPZy-w

Uh-huh.

Sure.

[LarryBnDC]

And Holly

That said, I see no wrong in being awakened to genuine areas of social injustice and realizing you want to speak out against them. 

I agree, the key word is genuine.

IMO there is little to be gained by pointing guilty fingers at people who laughed 10 years ago at what are now politically incorrect jokes, or fire 20 somethings for a twitter post made as a teen-ager, or censor movies made 50 years ago.
Or spouting stupid slogans like "defund police" that only will retard real social progress by pissing off mostly decent voters who are tired of the woke bullshit, who will say, "fuck them all" and stay home.

I could give you a more pointed example, but seeing as you're new here, I will restrain my self-righteous bullshit.

Well now, everything has excess. Id est quod est.

The one thing I would point out is that things like movies and books and jokes still have the power of immediate experience. Which includes the power to hurt and extend negative stereotypes and pointing out issues with, say, Gone With the Wind, or some of Dr. Seuss's work, or - God knows I am a committed Marxist of the Grouchoian sort but - A Day at the Races serves a current purpose.

I remember the first time I saw Duck Soup, a classic, one of the greatest comedies ever made, or first time as somewhat woke, and heard the "Armstrong" joke, my jaw dropped, but I laughed.

The scene should be deleted, or the movie banned.

As a personal aside I was scarred for life reading The Merchant of Venice.

There probably should be a warning on that book too.

Same with Dicken's Oliver Twist.

Right?

There’s more nuance to the scene in Duck Soup.

In context the song “That’s why darkies were born” was a big hit for Kate Smith in early 30s
On the surface the song sounds racist but is subversively anti racist and satirical

Philly leaped to the racist conclusion when they removed Kates statue from the plaza by the old spectrum.

Paul Robeson recorded the song, too.

It’s one of those slyly subversive songs that sound one way unless one ponders what’s being said by the lyric

Classic example is The Blue Tail Fly

Slave murders massa and gets away with it by putting blame on the blue tail fly
“Jimmy crack corn and I don’t care my masters gone away!”

Thanks Larry I know

And yes context is important.

But to most people, hearing that line, from the late 60s to pre-Google, it sounds pure racist.

Hey didn't you leave in a huff?

If that's too soon, you can leave in a minute and a huff.

Again

At the time the song was a huge hit for Kate Smith.

Again I know

you're missing the point.





Groucho's Headstrong/Armstrong construct was the offensive set-up to a popular reference.

People today aren't going to readily know the 1930s song, which may or may not have been satirical.

BTW, "Hymie the shifty Jew" in London in the 1830s. It was the rage in the London West-End.

Ok. I missed the point you’re making.