Did Rice say that terms people commonly use now, may be grounds for some terrible accusation 50 years from now? If so, maybe I should read her statement.
There does seem to be quite a communcation gap in this blog. 'Would', hypotheticals, common sense survey of probabilitles -- seem to be met with name calling.
The question in the OP about "what would going too far look like", did turn out to be about some hypothetical dystopian laws and customs, on rather a larger scale than even a US or Internet-wide mob flap. So my first comment may have confused you.
Would you pls ban me from commenting here, so I won't forget and get involved again on future entries? (I can't unfriend you, because you're not on my flist.)
"Migod, migod, can't you please ban me so that I can point to how you're oppressing me for defending a little old lady's pronunciation of a word FIFTY YEARS AGO. You have to ban me because remembering not to comment is too much like work or expecting me to be informed, and I'm pretending I can't do that when we both know it's totally possible for me to realize I've said something that crosses the 'but I was just making a hypothetical point!' line I'm dancing behind and delete my own comments. Please won't you give me an excuse to yell censorship because I won't stop being a racist apologist and you don't need to deal with that obnoxious shit--I'm self-aware enough to make sure that when I vomit I only do it in the middle of the floor and I stick an 'art installation' tag on it, but actually not being a nauseous ass is, like, work. And who will misrepresent and defend racists this week if it's not me? So you have to ban me. See? I said please."
Did Rice say that terms people commonly use now, may be grounds for some terrible accusation 50 years from now?
Why no, that's not one of the objectionable parts of her statement, nor is it the part I *warned you* was racist and stupid before you used it. And then you used it *again* in the comment I'm replying to right now.
(Hint: people objecting to racist statements, using words? Not the same at all as white people murdering black people. You should stop saying they're the same thing.)
maybe I should read her statement.
Yes, the fact that you don't know what you're talking about and can't be bothered to learn *before* spouting misinformed and casually racist things would, in fact, be part of your problem. Good on you to recognise that, finally.
So my first comment may have confused you
Well, it did, because it LOOKED LIKE you were making a misinformed and uneducated attempt to defend the indefensible about a current event, while painting yourself as a martyr, regardless of the fact that nothing you were saying at any time approached a coherent thought.
So I asked, and you said "no, no, I wasn't doing that at all, but SINCE YOU BROUGHT IT UP that current event is totally the same as murder and white people are oppressed and PC gone mad and ABLOO ABLOO ABLOO here have a kitten".
And people called you on your oh-so-innocent butter-wouldn't-melt-in-my-mouth attempts to paint those who object to racism as unreasonable assholes, while you kept saying "Oh no, I'm not DEFENDING it, but you're being UNREASONABLE and it was totally OKAY and the response is still TERRIBLE".
Would you pls ban me from commenting here, so I won't forget and get involved again on future entries?
Or you could try informing yourself before participating and making sure you know what you're talking about BEFORE expressing an opinion. You should try it. It works
Oh hey, let's recap, you've done the failed flounce, you've done the fake martyr, you've done the "I'm not racist but... isn't anti-racism the REAL racism and aren't WHITE people the real victims?" one, and now you're making a tone argument.... BINGO! That's a line! BINGO!
Ohh, dude, you are in for it now. They are so going to explain how you were wrong on their blog...!
(Do I have bets on how there will be explanations about picking battles and only objecting to bad things and how people abusing a little old lady for the words other people taught her are totally not as important as kittens? Or something.)
Please, please tell me that you guys are the ones housebloatonstyx has banned in the hopes of never seeing their posts and comments again.
(Also, considering this is the same dude that tried to imply that the racist kids of Republicans were only being labeled racist because they were the kids of Republicans who had been labeled racist, I'm surprised this is the first go-around y'all have had.)
This isn't the first. His recent forays into commentary here include "racist children of Republicans are only labelled racist because their parents are racist, regardless of how racist they actually are", "you shouldn't paraphrase for emphasis while being clear that it's a paraphrase, because that might be confusing to the stupid", "the perception of Republicans as bigoted assholes is wrong even though the only exclusively-Republican positions are bigoted and assholey and also they emphasize those as the only reason to vote for them", "the Oxford Comma is the one true comma-delimiting element in a comma-delimited list"[1], "a cop shooting kittens with his sidearm in front of small children is just Job One for Real Po-Leese", and "Paula Deen's critics are a lynch mob of PC gone mad and WHITE people are the real victims of racism".
I still haven't banned him, because despite holding and expressing a great many ignorant, racist, and stupid opinions, he's been expressing them like something CLOSE TO an adult manner. See also the Tom Kratman[2] rule around these parts: "Being so obnoxious that you're disinvited to participate is a mark of *obnoxiousness*, and says nothing about the relative moral standing of banner and banned, or the correctness of what you were saying."
I'd link him to any number of the various LJ-killfiles, but houseboatonstyx is demonstrably fuckwitted. And I have no interest in seeing *if* I'm one of the people he's pre-emptively banned despite never having anything to say that might interest me, just to provide a comment on his journal.
[1]: Hey, he's not always wrong.
[2]: Hi Tom. Did I ping your Google rule again? My bad. Your Facebook is still banned, because you evidently can't play nice under your real name. If the sock puppet (of the kind you, historically, create whenever you're banned) is less of an asshole, it can stay.[3]
[3]: Hint: Your last sock here was "jim braiden". If that helps you find the login info, come and play. But I'm going to start by linking you back to the last time you gave up and saying "Hey, remember that time you gave up on defending the indefensible? Defend or admit you can't."
I have no idea! (Also, I'm not going to check, since AFAIK the only way to do that is commenting on their posts and seeing if it goes through. I have decided that this is not worth my time.)
...it's actually kind of nice, the level of not-caring about that particular ignoramus I am maintaining at this point. It might be due to tiredness, mind.
Well, as long as neither of you will check...it remains both true and not true at the same time, which is good enough for me. :D
Clearly, I usually don't care about him, as weaselking had to enumerate the past stupid he'd provided. Only, after the "kids of Republicans are unjustly labeled as racist the same way that kids of schizophrenics are unjustly labeled schizophrenic" post, I actually looked at his lj. His post about how discussing with your kids that the American Indians in Peter Pan are racist caricatures is equivalent to telling your kids not to clap for Tinkerbell really got under my skin. I hope to achieve your level of not-caring in the future, though!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-28 03:53 am (UTC)Well done! You're too stupid to participate.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-28 04:17 am (UTC)There does seem to be quite a communcation gap in this blog. 'Would', hypotheticals, common sense survey of probabilitles -- seem to be met with name calling.
The question in the OP about "what would going too far look like", did turn out to be about some hypothetical dystopian laws and customs, on rather a larger scale than even a US or Internet-wide mob flap. So my first comment may have confused you.
Would you pls ban me from commenting here, so I won't forget and get involved again on future entries? (I can't unfriend you, because you're not on my flist.)
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-28 12:40 pm (UTC)Did I miss anything?
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-28 01:02 pm (UTC)Why no, that's not one of the objectionable parts of her statement, nor is it the part I *warned you* was racist and stupid before you used it. And then you used it *again* in the comment I'm replying to right now.
(Hint: people objecting to racist statements, using words? Not the same at all as white people murdering black people. You should stop saying they're the same thing.)
maybe I should read her statement.
Yes, the fact that you don't know what you're talking about and can't be bothered to learn *before* spouting misinformed and casually racist things would, in fact, be part of your problem. Good on you to recognise that, finally.
So my first comment may have confused you
Well, it did, because it LOOKED LIKE you were making a misinformed and uneducated attempt to defend the indefensible about a current event, while painting yourself as a martyr, regardless of the fact that nothing you were saying at any time approached a coherent thought.
So I asked, and you said "no, no, I wasn't doing that at all, but SINCE YOU BROUGHT IT UP that current event is totally the same as murder and white people are oppressed and PC gone mad and ABLOO ABLOO ABLOO here have a kitten".
And people called you on your oh-so-innocent butter-wouldn't-melt-in-my-mouth attempts to paint those who object to racism as unreasonable assholes, while you kept saying "Oh no, I'm not DEFENDING it, but you're being UNREASONABLE and it was totally OKAY and the response is still TERRIBLE".
Would you pls ban me from commenting here, so I won't forget and get involved again on future entries?
Or you could try informing yourself before participating and making sure you know what you're talking about BEFORE expressing an opinion. You should try it. It works
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-28 02:57 pm (UTC)Which will be moderated for civility and topicality.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-28 03:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-28 03:35 pm (UTC)(Do I have bets on how there will be explanations about picking battles and only objecting to bad things and how people abusing a little old lady for the words other people taught her are totally not as important as kittens? Or something.)
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-28 06:33 pm (UTC)(Also, considering this is the same dude that tried to imply that the racist kids of Republicans were only being labeled racist because they were the kids of Republicans who had been labeled racist, I'm surprised this is the first go-around y'all have had.)
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-28 09:30 pm (UTC)I still haven't banned him, because despite holding and expressing a great many ignorant, racist, and stupid opinions, he's been expressing them like something CLOSE TO an adult manner. See also the Tom Kratman[2] rule around these parts: "Being so obnoxious that you're disinvited to participate is a mark of *obnoxiousness*, and says nothing about the relative moral standing of banner and banned, or the correctness of what you were saying."
I'd link him to any number of the various LJ-killfiles, but
[1]: Hey, he's not always wrong.
[2]: Hi Tom. Did I ping your Google rule again? My bad. Your Facebook is still banned, because you evidently can't play nice under your real name. If the sock puppet (of the kind you, historically, create whenever you're banned) is less of an asshole, it can stay.[3]
[3]: Hint: Your last sock here was "jim braiden". If that helps you find the login info, come and play. But I'm going to start by linking you back to the last time you gave up and saying "Hey, remember that time you gave up on defending the indefensible? Defend or admit you can't."
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-29 05:42 am (UTC)...it's actually kind of nice, the level of not-caring about that particular ignoramus I am maintaining at this point. It might be due to tiredness, mind.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-29 02:56 pm (UTC)Clearly, I usually don't care about him, as weaselking had to enumerate the past stupid he'd provided. Only, after the "kids of Republicans are unjustly labeled as racist the same way that kids of schizophrenics are unjustly labeled schizophrenic" post, I actually looked at his lj. His post about how discussing with your kids that the American Indians in Peter Pan are racist caricatures is equivalent to telling your kids not to clap for Tinkerbell really got under my skin. I hope to achieve your level of not-caring in the future, though!