This is Ssupak's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Ssupak's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Well, of course, "Dis Chin" would be the one to run alongside "Deez Nuts."
"..on my vacation away from worky."--Homer J Simpson Thanks for the Homer sings Manalow brain worm.
"positing from it the existence of" And this surprises us from those who complicate their ontology by positing the existence of the unprovable? "writing touchy stories and getting grief -- this is new?" The Jews have a saying for that. "Ma Nishtana" or "What has changed?" It's often used sarcastically. "We didn't win the gay marriage fight by playing nice: we won because we (rightly) pointed out that if you oppose gay marriage, you are a disgusting bigot." Anyone think we ended Jim Crow by playing nice with Dixiecrats? Maybe those fire hoses were just the water parks of the day.
Does ISIS really need Russian experts? Haven't they already been recruiting in this direction?
Toggle Commented Jan 28, 2015 on Russia Hacks its way to Victory at Global Guerrillas
Apparently the blinking red light at the very top, required for aircraft warning I suppose, spells out the word "Hollywood" in Morse code.
Toggle Commented Dec 21, 2014 on 'Tis The Season! at Whiskey Fire
Further bullshit: "most of its abuses – certainly its legal abuses – ended fifty years ago in the South and never existed at all in the West and North." He needs to read Ta-Nehisi Coates. "One thing, people, I want everybody to know You're gonna find some Jim Crow, every place you go" --Leadbelly
Toggle Commented Aug 29, 2014 on Tequila Mockingbird at Whiskey Fire
Ah, yes... the whole Madeleine thing. I seem to be slowing down in my old age.
OK, someone help this poor philosophy major with Joyce... << When he was quite sure that the narrative had ended he laughed noiselessly for fully half a minute. Then he said: “Well! . . . That takes the biscuit!” His voice seemed winnowed of vigour; and to enforce his words he added with humour: “That takes the solitary, unique, and, if I may so call it, recherche biscuit! ” >> So, I'm not sure I get the reference. This is a kind of fancy French desert? I am familiar with "Rubber Biscuit" by the Chips (1956), famously covered by the Blues Brothers: "A ricochet biscuit is the kind of a biscuit that's supposed to bounce back off the wall into your mouth. If it don't bounce back... you go hungry! Bow bow bow..."
"though you see why [they?] clamor for it"
Well, while we're at it... "The classic American Way is to find ways to deliver win-win-win solutions. " It is? Like, use biological warfare to rid the continent of most of those pesky injuns, while you gun down and run up the rest, which you then cordon off in poverty zones? Like the kidnap, rape, torture, murder, and stealing of the labor of brown people for hundreds of years, literally using slave labor to build the US capitol? Like killing millions of blacks in lynchings AFTER the civil war in an organized terrorist campaign that continues to this day? Like lying our way into the Spanish American War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War? Like the fact that Jimmy Carter is the only president who didn't use US armed forces to kill foreigners? [Jimmy would have, too, if the hostage rescue hadn't screwed up). Is that what you mean by win-win-win being the American Thing, John? Would it be better if we all just worked together as equals? HELL yes, it would. But the problem is not minorities asking people to drop their privilege. The problem is the privilege and the many myriad ways it is still perpetrated, often violently, in our society. You're blaming the victims here. If you're truly worried about morality, I suggest a utilitarian view of the damage first. I suggest you start by looking at incarceration rates for drug offenses in which the blacks don't use drugs any more than whites, but are incarcerated at much higher rates. You could also look at the fact that in stop-and-frisk situations in NYC, whites had weapons of drugs at much HIGHER rates than the minorities. Maybe we need to racially profile white people for a while. "I don’t feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from the Indians. There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves."--John Wayne
"Just check Ukraine and you will see than that American way of unconventional warfare is VERY dangerous" The American way? What? Are you new? The American way of fighting against racism is admirable. I gave the example of the man who almost single-handedly killed the Klan. What's your example?
"Think, BEFORE, you type" The suggestion that I don't is insulting.
"Imagine a million people having a discussion in a forum all together at the same right, it doesnt work right?" I'm afraid you're going to have to explain this. Try to use more concrete examples. Over a million people are on the internet right now talking. At this particular moment and server space, it is now your turn to explain what this means in terms of, say, affirmative action, or housing discrimination.
"John is talking to you about the dynamis of conflict, not about what ought to be, but what can be," So am I. The dynamics are that in a world where the war against black people continues, whining about them asking to be present in "the discussion" is the height of hubris. I'll try saying it another way... "the attack disconnects the target from the moral support of others." The support of racists to each other is not moral. To attack the tools of the racists, elegant or not, is how the fight has been going. But to blame those attacked for continuing the war is unfair and looks as if you're on the racist side. So, my question is, why is John saying that it is the people fighting back against racism who are at fault for not allowing the conversation to take place, through disruptive tactics. The obvious fact of the matter is that it is the racists who attack the moral system the minorities use. It is the racist who, to this day (read the Ta-Nahisi about Sterling's recent settlement for housing discrimination), uses the economic and social tools of disruption to upset the minority community. The idea that minorities are wrong for trying to disrupt the racist system is disgusting to me.
I don't have the bandwidth to watch your video. Could you put it into words?
Right on cue, Ta-Nehisi Coates, on "Elegant Racism." "The elegant racist knows how to injure non-white people while never summoning the specter of white guilt."-Ta-Nehisi Coates
Oh, I see... I thought you were replying to me. "poor privileged folks being excluded from debates by unprivileged people..." Yes, it does seem odd to defend the "moral bonds that allow the target to function in a social context" when the target is people who want to leave minority voices out of the conversation.
Oh, I think I get it... I'd just like to see it explained better.
"makes progress on issues almost impossible" Racism makes progress on issues impossible. Are you saying racism no longer exists? "How is that a good thing?" I used the example of Stetson Kennedy. I assume that's what you're referring to with the Hillary Clinton joke about a "vast conspiracy"? Yes, I believe there is a conspiracy that is, while more loosely affiliated than they were as Klansmen, now easily found in the dog whistle politics of those who still use the southern strategy to control certain segments of our government. Read Kagan's dissent in the Michigan case. Leaving minorities out of the conversation does not help the conversation. Likewise, when privilege gets in the way of representative bodies having a discussion, how is that a good thing?
How is asking a pertinent question a way of ending a discussion? If a person doesn't like the question, they should say so, and say way, and continue the discussion. Pointing out a lack of other points of view in a particular situation is a discussion starter. I think thou dost protest too much.
John, please correct me if I have you wrong, but I'm really struggling with this... "weakening or breaking the moral bonds that allow the target to function in a social context. " If the "moral" bonds that allow the target to function in a social context are bonds of racism, bonds that perpetuate racism, racist policies, racist statements, racist attitudes... then isn't targeting those bonds precisely what we should do? When Stetson Kennedy infiltrated the Klan, and then made public all their little codes, he broke the immoral bonds that allowed the target to function in a social context. I think of him as a hero.
"Anything, like the above, that interferes with achieving win-win-win outcomes is "fail logic" to me." So, then, the actual racist policies and statements that lead to such privilege are part of this set of things that stop the win-win-win outcome. It's always the person who reacts to the foul who gets called for it, eh?
"It falls in with political correctness, micro-aggressions, and so on as another aspect of ultimate ad hominum." If my kids are being stopped and frisked for their color, if my people are being suppressed at the polls, if my people are being incarcerated at higher rates than others for offenses that they commit at the same rate as others, if my people are being executed in botched executions, denied spots in esteemed educational institutions, being told their lazy by politicians who ignore the fact that 2/3rds of Americans poor are rural whites... then it's someone how my fault for attacking the people who want to claim some privilege for their actions? Really? We have no blame for the privileged who are using their privilege to discriminate against others not like them? I find that a bit much... "This is an attack on identity." No, all those things I mentioned are an attack on the identity of blacks. "The goal of the attack is to exclude voices from the discourse, the space. " No, the goal is to ask people to drop the idea that they are privileged because they're white. "Unfortunately for people playing at that game, all it does is reserve for them a powerless space. " Not really. It clears the table of all the garbage that some of the discussion participants brought with them, and piled up. "The people who use the attack don't feel powerless at that moment." So, say, my black friend in Clark County who happens to run into one of these oath keeper road blocks says something about a white guy with a gun illegally stopping him and asking for identification on a public road... he asks that guy what gives him the right to do that, exactly what would happen if a bunch of black guys did what they're doing, that guy doesn't feel powerless because he pointed out the white guy's privilege? "The attack rewards them, personally, even as it pulls the scope of influence away from the people with whom they are claiming solidarity." What attack? Asking some white guys with guns what the hell they think they're doing stopping people on a public road, pointing out that they're only getting away with it because they're white, that's rewarding to the black person? I don't get it? "The 'privileged' reply is effective, silent, and straight-forward. " No, the white guys stopping people illegally in NV is effective and straight forward. They are at fault. They are claiming a privilege which, by law, they don't have. This privilege is wrapped up in their race identity. Pointing that fact out is not the exercise of privilege. It is the pointing out of an exercise of privilege. Same goes for any discussion on a college campus. A bunch of white kids want to start making ignorant assumptions and statements about racial issues (or even smart ones, for that matter) it is most certainly a good thing that someone points out that maybe, just maybe, they ought to ask a few more black people in on the conversation about black people.
Really good point on the violence against women. Let's apply that to blacks, against whom there's also been a violent, terrorist war for centuries, during which time we had a civil war, Jim Crow, and now, finally, things are somewhat better, but still quite bad when we look at incarceration rates, stop-and-frisk, voter suppression, etc... So, I'm a bit dismayed at this statement, John: ""Privilege" as a form of attack is going to generate an aggressive, non-violent counter response from those on the right, in the not too distant future." First of all, if the right is upset about people ripping into their claims of privilege, maybe they should stop all these racist policies and statements ("food stamp president" "Kenyan marxist" etc) that is making people strike back at them. But further, to suggest that those asking people to drop their privilege are at fault for degenerating the conversation seems a bit much. But maybe I misunderstood you, John? If the conversation over race deteriorates, it's certainly not those on the receiving end of racist policies that should be blamed for it.
Matt Yglesias touched on the subject of how legal marijuana will impact sales of other items, like beer and snacks. I'd be curious if you could find a way to word a question that ascertains whether people have made any drastic changes in their consumption patterns due to the new law.