Comments are closed.

  1. Hal_10000 *

    He started out as a far-left wing revolutionary accused of violent action. Ended up reconciling the apartheid and keeping South Africa a modern economy. Very few people progress like that.

    Thumb up 4

  2. Poosh

    Indifferent.

    Nelson Mandela is like the grandfather we all have who raped you when you were a kid, but later on implied but never outright stated he was sorry about it, and you forgave him because if you didn’t it would be racist. Or the best friend who, on seeing a bully steal your bike, got it back for you – only to fuck over said bike a few years later.

    Hot! Thumb up 4

  3. AlexInCT

    Nelson Mandela is like the grandfather we all have who raped you when you were a kid, but later on implied but never outright stated he was sorry about it, and you forgave him because if you didn’t it would be racist.

    ^^^THIS^^^^

    This guy has never impressed me. He got away with shit only because some people needed to keep the illusion alive. The only difference between him and Mugabe was that he let his ex do the dirty work and Mugabe manned up and did his own dirty shit.

    May he rest in peace.

    Hot! Thumb up 10

  4. Hal_10000 *

    Revisionist history is fun. We can pretend, for example, that South Africa wouldn’t have had a complete ethnic meltdown without Mandela. Or that he maintained a market economy despite his supposed opposition. I heard these Rush Limbaugh talking points about Mandela 20 years ago. Don’t need to hear them again.

    Thumb up 6

  5. CM

    Wow, yeah, he was like a rapist. That’s awesome.
    And according to MY there will be massive race riots in South Africa now. Stand by….

    Hot! Thumb up 5

  6. Poosh

    I think we couldn’t have a rational discussion about this dubious man whilst he was alive *just because* so in death .. we can’t either. Brilliant.

    It’s not good enough for people to have it both ways. He was complicated man with conflicting accounts still at play over what he exactly did. Does he have the blood of innocent children and women on his hands? Maybe. I don’t know for sure because it’s complicated and difficult to ascertain the truth. But South Africa was not well looked after under his leadership and he failed to call out many a tyrant. Yes, he stopped a bloodbath. That’s why he’s a complicated man.

    Normally I agree with not speaking ill of the dead – but “you” denied us the right to speak of him while he was alive because he was .

    Enough. The myth of this man needs to be destroyed asap, before he’s even buried. The lie that he was some sort of might hero was sickening enough when he was alive, but to be denied the truth, or at least an honest discussion about a morally ambiguous man, leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

    I doubt the truth of this man will ever come out for at least a few decades, but we know – know – that this pathetic myth of Mandela that is prevalent today is false.

    Some times men are neither heroes nor villains, they’re simply walking the line.

    Hot! Thumb up 11

  7. Mook

    Please. Mandela was the founder of the terrorist group MK. 70,000+ murdered white farmers after he took power, many raped and butchered in front their children before the children were drowned in boiling water. I agree 100% with Poosh.. Mandela is, at best, a “complicated” man with the blood of many innocents on his hands. It’s lying bullshit for Hal and others to make him out to be anything different.

    I used to do business in SA.. traveled there 3 times between ’96 and 2000. Locals had to install cages in their homes to prevent black thieves from entering the bedrooms to slaughter the children and family out of murderous black racial hatred. Very little govt. protection for whites.

    In fairness, the whites living in SA that I worked with seemed to be genuinely touched by Mandela’s gesture to wear the green jacket supporting the Springboks. That conciliatory gesture was huge in their perception.

    Doesn’t offset all the other wickedness from Mandela… but like Poosh suggested, he was walking a line.. an often very bloody line. It’s dishonest as hell to pretend otherwise

    Thumb up 12

  8. Hal_10000 *

    i”m not denying Mandela’s founding of MK. But the progress he made to become a unifying figure was something few “revolutionaries” do. Bill Ayers has yet to make up for doing far less.

    Look at the rest of Africa and look at South Africa. Read some of the inside stories about how he kept the ANC in line and how he governed like democracies are supposed to: abiding by laws even when he didn’t like them (something our current President doesn’t always do). Then he quit after one term so he wouldn’t become a cult figure or a dictator.

    I’m not saying you ignore the stuff he did that landed him in prison. But I am saying that he deserves a significant amount of credit for getting rid of a great evil (apartheid) with far less violence than your typical third world country uses to wallow in poverty.

    Thumb up 2

  9. Poosh

    CM still doesn’t know what a metaphor is. Does he have assburgers or something?

    Hal is right about the credit Mandela deserves but do not overclaim, which is totes a word, what he actually did. He failed to do a lot for peace that he could EASILY have done once he was an intentional superstar. The fact that he didn’t, puts a big question mark over his head.

    Of course it’s repeated in our elite circles, by movie stars for example, that he was a hero period. So anything that challenges that claim must be evil.

    Thumb up 5

  10. Seattle Outcast

    At least he married the women who invented the practice of putting a gasoline soaked tire around her enemies and setting them on fire. I mean, who doens’t love that sort of complete crazy?

    Thumb up 5

  11. Hal_10000 *

    One thing I am getting a little annoyed about is the discussion of the CIA’s role in Mandela’s arrest. It’s easy to criticize now. But people always forget that we were in a Cold War with a nation that had dedicated itself to our destruction. They were a real existential threat to us. As far as the CIA was concerned, everything else — even apartheid — was background noise to that singular reality. We did some awful stuff during the Cold War because we felt we had to.

    Thumb up 2

  12. Poosh

    The article misses out a some alleged sins of Mandela (such as children and women he ordered the killings of) and actual failings whilst he was in power, which are a matter of record (Mugabe, for example) but overall that is a good article.

    Thumb up 2

  13. Iconoclast

    Mandela is like a rapist. Yeah, I’ve got assburgers, that’s the problem there.

    That’s one of your problems, yes. You are completely misrepresenting what poosh said by ignoring the temporal context. Poosh talked about being raped as a hypothetical kid, which means. it was something that happened a long time ago, and is not happening now. But you persist in making it about the present tense (“Mandela is like a rapist.”), which is dishonest.

    Mandela purportedly did do some horrible things in the past, and likening those things to rape isn’t as far-fetched as you pretend it to be.

    Posted from my iPad.

    Thumb up 14

  14. AlexInCT

    Hal is right about the credit Mandela deserves but do not overclaim, which is totes a word, what he actually did. He failed to do a lot for peace that he could EASILY have done once he was an intentional superstar

    Maybe if the Nobel committee had given him a peace prize like they did Arafat and some other guy that no thinks he can drone strike everyone he feels like, he would have really done something great?

    Speaking of Drones…

    The other day I got an Amazon ticket telling me the Drone had defected to Skynet’s side and couldn’t thus make my delivery. Time for Google to arm their cars with some surface to ar missiles I say.. We need more robots with weapons if we are gonna get this party rocking!

    Thumb up 2

  15. AlexInCT

    Mandela purportedly did do some horrible things in the past,

    No purportedly about it. everyone of these entities allied with the Soviets was a murderous bunch of evil goons. Revisionist history might want to pretend otherwise, but the viles people on this planet are all courtesy of the old USSR. Shit, even Islamic terrorism, which starts with the PLO and Arafat, came from the good ol’ USSR. About the only good thing the Soviets produced, albeit inderctly, was Putin making fun of Obama, whom, based on his stupid wealth redistributionist cum tyrant beliefs, is one of them too.

    Posted from someone’s mother’s bedroom

    Thumb up 10

  16. Poosh

    “Mandela purportedly did do some horrible things in the past, and likening those things to rape isn’t as far-fetched as you pretend it to be.”

    I was referring (if one is actually interested) to his supposed ordering , from prison, of various butchering of women and children. Which he may or may not have apologised for. As I said, the truth of what he did or did not do eludes us. And may for a very long time.

    (It did occur to me just now that writing of the word “rape” next to any black male might cause faux-offense and indignation in certain people of a certain mindset, i.e racists-in-the-closet. I made no association at the time as I’m sure most of us did not.)

    Thumb up 3

  17. CM

    You guys certainly write a huge pile of steaming horseshit at times.

    CM still doesn’t know what a metaphor is.

    Do you know what an analogy is?

    You are completely misrepresenting what poosh said by ignoring the temporal context. Poosh talked about being raped as a hypothetical kid, which means. it was something that happened a long time ago, and is not happening now. But you persist in making it about the present tense (“Mandela is like a rapist.”), which is dishonest.

    The “temporal context”? LMAO. What about the state of South Africa at the time? Where does that fit into your “temporal context”? How does the grandfather analogy relate to this context? For example, what did the kid do to the grandfather that is the equivalent of what the whites of South Africa did to the blacks?
    The grandfather “we all have”? WTF? I didn’t have a grandfather like that. Did you Iconoclast?
    Might explain some of Poosh’s issues though. Not sure about yours.
    Who the hell wouldn’t consider their grandfather a rapist if they raped them? What the fuck kind of families do you guys live in?

    Mandela purportedly did do some horrible things in the past, and likening those things to rape isn’t as far-fetched as you pretend it to be.

    His analogy is patently ridiculous. Get a fucking grip. This is all designed to try and de-emphasise and play down all the good Mandela did. Can’t have that, because he was associated with the left. Pathetic.

    So yes then as proven.

    So you don’t know about sarcasm either.

    (It did occur to me just now that writing of the word “rape” next to any black male might cause faux-offense and indignation in certain people of a certain mindset, i.e racists-in-the-closet. I made no association at the time as I’m sure most of us did not.)

    I certainly made no association. It’s irrelevant to it being a stupid ignorant analogy. But nice of you to make veiled accusations of racism to try and cover your tracks. Gotta love it when a guy who had never even heard of lynching wants to talk about racism.
    As usual, you’re all class.

    Poosh isn’t referring to ‘rape rape’ – just rape. I think that’s where the confusion lies.

    I understand the body-politic has ways of shutting that whole thing down.

    Hot! Thumb up 6

  18. HARLEY

    This is all designed to try and de-emphasise and play down all the good Mandela did. Can’t have that, because he was associated with the left. Pathetic.

    No he actively had civilians killed to further his goals….. Prison and the media spot light changed him ….for the better…..

    Thumb up 5

  19. AlexInCT

    This is all designed to try and de-emphasise and play down all the good Mandela did. Can’t have that, because he was associated with the left. Pathetic.

    As Harley already pointed out, that’s projection at its best. It’s not a coincidence that the vilest and most evil murdering scum on the planet are leftists, trained by leftists, or in league with leftist. You name them they are leftists. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, any of the Kims, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez, Mugabe, Arafat, and so many more, including Hitler – yes, he was a socialist as Nazi which is a contraction of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei and he did that socialistic movement justice – and his buddy Mussolini. Mandela might not rise to these people’s level, but he has that history and background that involved murdering many in the name of his collectivist ideology. To pretend that stuff can be washed away by revisionist history is the height of hypocrisy. I am sure you will not give someone that claims Hitler was actually a good guy because he fixed the German economy or that Mussolini was also not that bad because he had the trains running on time a pass, because leftists have put a lot of effort and time into convincing people these two were right wing. They are still making excuses for the murderous communists too. It’s not an accident that leftists believe communism still can be made to work because it has never been tried by the right people. Then again, the world’s leftists are experts at patting each other on the back and pretending that their shit don’t stink.

    And what Mandela did after he spent his time in jail was not much better than what came before either. Like with Obama there is a big effort to create a mythological entity, but that shit should be pushed back on. The collectivists should not be allowed to pretend that any of them is something they are or were not. I am sad someone died, but I am not about to lie down and let people create yet another leftist hero out of an uncommon criminal and murderer that might have repented at a later age.

    Thumb up 2

  20. CM

    hist_ed you should see what some on the right at Moorewatch Forums had to say about Mother Theresa. I’ll see if I can find something.

    Defining Mandela as an “uncommon criminal and murderer” about says it all. Nobody is even remotely suggesting that history be rewritten. Stop with the straw men already Alex, it gets tired real quick.

    I was referring (if one is actually interested) to his supposed ordering , from prison, of various butchering of women and children. Which he may or may not have apologised for. As I said, the truth of what he did or did not do eludes us. And may for a very long time.

    ‘Supposed’? It do ‘eludes us’? How does that fit with your anal….sorry ‘metaphor’? Did we all have a grandfather who raped us or did we not?

    Thumb up 1

  21. Poosh

    Mother Theresa wasn’t necessarily a saint either. Christopher Hitchens had great issues with her and that’s good enough for me to consider her not someone to label “heroine” without further investigation.

    As usual CM shows himself up as the CM that he has always been, I’m just gonna stop now apart from inform you that an allegory is an extended metaphor, if you want to get technical.

    *Not entirely sure what this lynching thing comes from, I’m fairly sure I know what lynching is? I can see I’ve probably hit the nail on the head with your actual motives though, so i’ll just say toodles.

    Not all liberals are like CM and for that I am grateful.

    Thumb up 2

  22. AlexInCT

    Yeah, and I guess the Dalai Llama was an asshole

    Never said he was, but I am not putting him on a pedestal either. Then again, he hasn’t got blood on his hands in the name of social justice or any other such marxist crusade.

    and that Mother Theresa? What a bitch.

    Why? I thought she did some nice things, but I don’t see her as a saint either. And unlike Mandela, she didn’t kill anyone either.

    Maybe I am insane for having more respect for the guy down the road that has woken up every day to go to work to provide for his family and has avoided all the bullshit that get people in trouble, than I do for one of these people, especially people like Madela that killed in the name of communism, but if that’s being crazy, I am good with that. I have very little respect for contemporary politicians of any kind, and none at all for marxists, be they past or present ones.

    Thumb up 0

  23. AlexInCT

    Not all liberals are like CM and for that I am grateful.

    The sad thing is that I know some that are even worse here in the People’s Republic of Connecticut…

    Thumb up 0

  24. hist_ed

    So I know that looked like sarcasm, but if you do some digging, the assessments hold up. Tibet, before the Chicomms took over, was a feudal theocratic monarchy. The entire country essentially existed to keep the monks comfy as they did their thing. The average Tibetan lived a life of grinding horrible poverty with zero rights. Not saying the chicoms should have taken Tibet, but there it is.

    And Mother Theresa believed that suffering was holy and got one closer to god. She did little to ameliorate the suffering and was happy to cozy up to any donor no matter how vile and loathsome (eg: Duvalier of Haiti).

    Hitchens and Penn and Tellor have dug into both.

    Thumb up 4

  25. CM

    As usual CM shows himself up as the CM that he has always been, I’m just gonna stop now apart from inform you that an allegory is an extended metaphor, if you want to get technical.

    Except it’s not even remotely an allegory. It’s an extremely poor attempt at an analogy.
    Same old Poosh: “I’m going to stop now, except……[more nonsense]”.

    *Not entirely sure what this lynching thing comes from, I’m fairly sure I know what lynching is?

    Poosh:

    “I am confused as to the lynching reference. What does that have to do with race?”

    http://right-thinking.com/2011/10/31/dr-cain-and-the-women/

    What has lynching to do with race? WTF?

    Not all liberals are like CM and for that I am grateful.

    I.e. some don’t call you on your shit.

    The sad thing is that I know some that are even worse here in the People’s Republic of Connecticut…

    I.e. they also call you on your shit, but are closer to home.

    Thumb up 1

  26. AlexInCT

    I.e. they also call you on your shit, but are closer to home.

    Oh please CM. Your overinflated opinion of either your capabilities or your sense of connection to reality disqualify you from being able to call anyone on anything. What you do is parrot the talking points, only with so much spam that it gets tiring, and remain immune to any facts, logic, or reason. There is a reason that there is so much truth to the axiom that facts, logic,, and reason have the same effect on liberals as holy water, holy symbols, and garlic does on vampires, and it isn’t that liberals are anything but an accurate representation of their stupidity and disconnect to reality.

    Go back to sniffing unicorn farts and lauding the praises of murderous collectivist scumbags that have been whitewashed by a complacent leftist propaganda machine masquerading as purveyors of news. That’s what passed with you for the height of “calling me on my shit”. Heh.

    I can’t wait for Castro to die for the media to tell us how great he was too. Kind of like they did with Chavez and this guy. Maybe Chomsky can write another book about another mass murderer, and paint em in a good light like he did Pol Pot. You guys can all then get together and sing Kumbaya.

    Thumb up 3

  27. Iconoclast

    His analogy is patently ridiculous.

    Actually, what’s “patently ridiculous” is your thin-skinned overreaction to poosh’s point of view.

    This is all designed to try and de-emphasise and play down all the good Mandela did.

    No, what “this is all designed to” do is reflect poosh’s point of view. Recall that all poosh did was say that he was “indifferent” toward the news of Mandela’s death, and explained why.

    Pathetic.

    No, what’s “pathetic” is your apparent inability to let someone voice their viewpoint without going into a foaming-at-the-mouth tailspin by misrepresenting what they said.

    For example, what did the kid do to the grandfather that is the equivalent of what the whites of South Africa did to the blacks?

    And there we have it, the attempted justification of what Mandela did, not the denial, no sir, he did what he did and those whites had it coming. You’re basically saying that it was okay for the grandfather to rape the kid because the kid’s great great grandfather raped the grandfather’s sister. Or cousin. Or something.

    The grandfather “we all have”? WTF? I didn’t have a grandfather like that. Did you Iconoclast?
    Might explain some of Poosh’s issues though. Not sure about yours.

    More evidence of your being completely unhinged. You do understand the concept of “analogy”, don’t you? I mean, you bandy the word as if you know what it means. No one is claiming that they were, you know, actually raped by their grandfather. That such would be your take-away speak more toward your mental state than that of anyone else here. But then, you are a liberal (whether you care to admit it to yourself or not), so that argument is partially made from the get-go.

    Who the hell wouldn’t consider their grandfather a rapist if they raped them?

    Again, you ignore the temporal context (yeah, go ahead and laugh, buffoon). If someone was a rapist twenty years ago, but hadn’t done it since then, are they still “a rapist” in the here-and-now? Or would ex-rapist be a wee bit more accurate?

    Get a fucking grip.

    The one who needs to get a grip is you, but hey, you do sound so cool with the swearing and all…

    Thumb up 9

  28. ilovecress

    Or… maybe nothing is quite so black and white, and people aren’t divided into ‘their side’ and ‘my side’, and pretty much anyone who makes a huge difference on a world stage has good and bad things in their history, and the whole idea of history is to assess the figures who influence it in terms of a bigger picture – and even then there is no right answer, just differing opinions in a conversation that’s been going on for centuries.

    Or, you know, the rapey thing.

    Hot! Thumb up 9

  29. salinger

    Mandela
    Fought fire with fire with fire, then rebuilt. The previous tennent was simply an arson with no taste for carpentry, Lots of contractors are thugs, some mellow and reform, Others not so much,

    Thumb up 1

  30. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 2

  31. Poosh

    “Fought fire with fire with fire, then rebuilt”

    It’s arguable that he didn’t actually do that. He, personally, only allowed for the attack on instruments of the state. You could interpret his refusal to not renounce violence as a refusal to renounce violence against agents of the STATE, not civilians etc.

    I don’t really want to respond to CM’s insanity again, but like so he says I don’t know what lynching is, then posts a link showing I do know what lynching is… I just did not appreciate the significance of lynching in a foreign country (seeing as lynching is a universal thing…) or the techo-lynching reference which was obscure to me as well.

    I wonder if CM has a post-it with “Poosh didn’t know what Food-Stamps was, remember” – on his desk).

    “same old Poosh” yeah someone who can’t be bothered with a thick person who can’t understand concepts, as usual. It’s infuriating because you’re so dumb. It’s the same old cycle, I shouldn’t have got drawn into it.

    I’m gonna attempt to explain my rapist metaphor, I refer to it merely as a metaphor because analogy might be too confusing to some (as it is for CM as we can all see) though the bike comment is more clearly an analogy. Clearly it’s causing problems for CM’s tiny brain as he’s declaring the rape comment is an analogy then saying its a nonsensical analogy. Shall I change it from metaphor to “poetic” as it might make more sense? We feel we cannot condemn Mandela because he is an old grandfather like figure, just as we find it strange and more unpalatable to face up to the grandfather who molested you as a child (so ‘pedophile’ more than rapist, there you go CM, I was calling him a pedophile!), the word “rape” was chosen to elicit horror and the significance of Mandela’s alleged terrorism against INNOCENTS (specifically women and children) and behavior in the PAST, the “sort of sorry about it” is analogous to his possible confession in prison / in his autobiographies. Note I then said “because he’s black” < which is not an analogy. I felt this was too complex to refer to as an analogy as it's all over the place, so I thought metaphor is fine, it's metaphorical language anyway – calling it "poetic" is pretentious, after all it was merely a throw away comment. I'm sorry this caused confusion in just CM and no one else, but I thought I should apologise to everyone else. I don't consider it an analogy because it contains too many parts but I find this irrelevant as clearly CM has no idea what I say or meant to say anyway and has succeeded in wasting my time despite, yet again, me thinking I'm just gonna ignore him.

    Skimming what CM wrote (CM says: "Is Poosh suggesting that rape victims have it coming? Because that’s the only way it would begin to make sense." < lol) it's clear he really has no idea. I've made my point to the people who I wanted to share it with, thanks for defending me. I'm gonna ignore CM once again because literally shit like that just keeps happening and I never learn. So many words have been wasted by myself and many of us on this absurdity. The rest of us know what I wrote, and understand what I was expressing – even if you disagree.

    You could be a racist CM anyway, which is why you overcompensate when the flicker of racism is in the air (mixed metaphor). Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you're not a racist and just mind-numbingly stupid, but at least if you were a closet racist that would explain your extreme lengths to not understand and appreciate (not even asking for agreement) a few throw-away sentences: must bang my "i'm not a racist!" drum. Occam's Razor: you is just dumb blud.

    Thumb up 4

  32. Poosh

    PS: “What has lynching to do with race? WTF?”

    Do I expect every American I meet to know what fireworks have to do with Catholicism ?

    Oddly enough I watched Django Unchained yesterday, that is pretty much my only contact with the American Slave Trade thank you very much.

    I’ll get onto African American Studies right after I’ve finished reading about the American Civil War, and the American Great Depression. As these were all weirdly absent in my education as a Brit.

    And they say American’s are self-obsessed and USA-centric…

    Thumb up 1

  33. Iconoclast

    Basically, it boils down to CM trying to tell poosh what he means. And of course, it comes as absolutely no surprise that CM gets bent out of shape when he thinks others are doing that to him.

    He can certainly dish it out, though…

    Thumb up 4

  34. CM

    I don’t really want to respond to CM’s insanity again, but like so he says I don’t know what lynching is, then posts a link showing I do know what lynching is

    Um no, you didn’t know what lynching had to do with race, on an American forum. You were surprised that lynching could be considered “so exclusively racial”. Which is stunning ignorance of US history (and the context the word carries in the US). There is no getting around that. You tried to by saying that it would be any easy thing to miss because you don’t live in the US (as if lynching is only known about in the US and isn’t a significant part of US history which is more like general knowledge than US historical knowledge or even general historical knowledge. Anyway, to have you imply that I’m racist when you didn’t even understand how lynching was a racial thing is rather funny.

    I wonder if CM has a post-it with “Poosh didn’t know what Food-Stamps was, remember” – on his desk).

    ;-)
    Ah yes, this….
    http://right-thinking.com/2011/08/16/obama-admin-comedy-gold/

    And then when I mentioned it later you said that your “knowledge of America’s working poor is basically Two Broke Girls…”. ;-)

    It just set off another little alarm bell in terms of gaps in knowledge, particularly when you’re making specific detailed comments about these subjects.

    BTW I see you’re doing that thing again where you can’t talk directly to the person you’re actually talking to.

    “same old Poosh” yeah someone who can’t be bothered with a thick person who can’t understand concepts, as usual. It’s infuriating because you’re so dumb. It’s the same old cycle, I shouldn’t have got drawn into it.

    I understood the concept. It just doesn’t work as an analogy/metaphor. Your starting point would need to be something equivalent to apartheid before the ‘rape’ (or equivalent). Everything flows from the initial context.

    Shall I change it from metaphor to “poetic” as it might make more sense?

    You could but it doesn’t alter the fact that it’s nonsense. But at least you’d almost be admitting as much.

    I refer to it merely as a metaphor because analogy might be too confusing to some (as it is for CM as we can all see) though the bike comment is more clearly an analogy.

    It would still need to make sense as a metaphor.

    We feel we cannot condemn Mandela because he is an old grandfather like figure, just as we find it strange and more unpalatable to face up to the grandfather who molested you as a child

    Well thanks for explaining it a little further (it is appreciated). But again, there is no context where molestation (or rape, as you initially had it) would even be remotely understandable or acceptable. Or where the grandfather could take actions that would be so great that the molestation or rape could be placed in any sort of understandable context. So the basic premise of the analogy/metaphor fails immediately.

    I felt this was too complex to refer to as an analogy as it’s all over the place, so I thought metaphor is fine, it’s metaphorical language anyway – calling it “poetic” is pretentious, after all it was merely a throw away comment.

    The situation is far more complex than can be summarised with a lazy analogy. You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, just as I am to question the logic behind how you’re expressed/explained it.

    Note I then said “because he’s black” < which is not an analogy.

    Yet another problem with how you expressed your opinion. That’s meant to be the kicker, but it’s a weird racial turn out of nowhere.

    I’m sorry this caused confusion in just CM and no one else, but I thought I should apologise to everyone else. I don’t consider it an analogy because it contains too many parts but I find this irrelevant as clearly CM has no idea what I say or meant to say anyway and has succeeded in wasting my time despite, yet again, me thinking I’m just gonna ignore him.

    Well 6 people gave it a thumbs down (versus 1 thumbs up). Presumably that doesn’t happen much to you here, so it probably says something.

    Skimming what CM wrote (CM says: “Is Poosh suggesting that rape victims have it coming? Because that’s the only way it would begin to make sense.” < lol) it's clear he really has no idea.

    I had no idea that it was meant only as a ‘throw away comment’ and that you didn’t actually consider it working as an analogy because it’s “all over the place”. It appeared to be your summary of Nelson Mandela. He is like a rapist that we can’t confront over it because he’s like a grandfather and also because….um….he’s black.

    ‘m gonna ignore CM once again because literally shit like that just keeps happening and I never learn. So many words have been wasted by myself and many of us on this absurdity. The rest of us know what I wrote, and understand what I was expressing – even if you disagree.

    I

    Yeah always easier to avoid being challenged (and talking to someone by pretending not to talk to them).
    Ignore away though. Your choice obviously.

    You could be a racist CM anyway, which is why you overcompensate when the flicker of racism is in the air (mixed metaphor). Maybe I’m wrong.

    Maybe, but worth throwing out there anyway huh! (Interesting that you’ve turned your head to actually direct this at me).

    Maybe you’re not a racist and just mind-numbingly stupid, but at least if you were a closet racist that would explain your extreme lengths to not understand and appreciate (not even asking for agreement) a few throw-away sentences: must bang my “i’m not a racist!” drum. Occam’s Razor: you is just dumb blud.

    I don’t see how it’s mind-numbingly stupid to mock (and explain via questions) that your analogy that doesn’t work.
    I also don’t see how race is directly relevant to anything I’ve said either. I was criticising (and mocking) your rape analogy. I wasn’t the only one. How you would get that I might be racist from that is just bizarre. Might just be some more stereotyping going on here.

    Thumb up 1

  35. Poosh

    Sorry your’re so stupid and irrational I stopped reading after your moaning about lynching. Hardly stunning ignorance, an understandable gap in my knowledge. I mean from your stupid ramblings in that first paragraph alone, the few sentences I read, demands I know every facet of American History. I mean do you seriously think because I didn’t know that the US gives food-stamps instead of a fixed momentary benefit, I can’t speak about welfare or benefits at all? This just proves how stupid you are – yet again. Lynching means murder/execution by the mob, a generic act. I did not know that word was racially loaded as it’s a generic term – I’m sure everyone is aware of this apart from you. They lynched witches as well, by hanging more often than not in fact, yet I don’t mind my language when discussing the local pagan witch. Nor did I know the relevance when a former US Judge used a similar term (techno-lynching or whatever) I’m not going to carry on. I realise i’m just doing it again – responding to you. Giving a dullard like you the time of day is unbecoming and pointless. It happens with every “debate” you engage in and I’m just getting drawn into it again mainly because I am procrastinating.

    Talking to you is like talking to a rapist who can’t get an erection, because he doesn’t understand how erections work, he just likes thinking he’s raping people.

    Thumb up 2

  36. CM

    Do I expect every American I meet to know what fireworks have to do with Catholicism ?

    If they start preaching about fireworks on a catholic blog/forum then you’d expect they should have a basic understanding about something which helps to underpin any modern understanding, yes.

    Oddly enough I watched Django Unchained yesterday, that is pretty much my only contact with the American Slave Trade thank you very much.

    It must have lost much of it’s meaning if you don’t know any of the context. (I thought the first half was pretty entertaining and interesting, but the last quarter was just silly, like he didn’t really know how to end it)
    Maybe read To Kill A Mockingbird. Or watch Mississippi Burning.
    Or watch/read any number of books/films/poems.

    “Southern trees bear a strange fruit,
    Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
    Black bodies swinging in the Southern breeze,
    Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.

    Pastoral scene of the gallant south
    the bulging eyes and the twisted mouth
    scent of magnolia
    sweet and fresh
    then the sudden smell of burning flesh

    Here is a fruit
    for the crows to pluck
    for the rain to gather
    for the wind to suck
    for the sun to rot
    for the tree to drop
    Here is a strange
    and bitter crop”

    “Strange Fruit”, written as a poem by Abel Meeropol in 1939 but better known as sung by Billie Holliday.

    And they say American’s are self-obsessed and USA-centric…

    So what are YOU doing here then?

    I’ll get onto African American Studies right after I’ve finished reading about the American Civil War, and the American Great Depression. As these were all weirdly absent in my education as a Brit.

    Thing is, they’re a part of world history. I wouldn’t necessarily have expected to you have studied any of them in any depth at school (although Jim Crow was on the school curriculum here).
    Lynching and Jim Crow and the civil rights movement is far more than just “African American Studies”. As I said, they’re fundamental parts of modern US history.

    Basically, it boils down to CM trying to tell poosh what he means. And of course, it comes as absolutely no surprise that CM gets bent out of shape when he thinks others are doing that to him.

    He can certainly dish it out, though…

    Apparently his analogy/metaphor was not intended for scrutiny. I didn’t realise. I thought he was being deliberately provocative (Poosh acknowledges that the word “rape” was chosen to elicit horror). In order to get a response. Turns out he didn’t really mean it. I’m apparently mind-numbingly stupid (or racist) for not realising. So there we go.
    But if that’s what he’s telling me, I’ll happily accept it. Actually WHATEVER he tells me he means, I’ll accept that that’s what he meant. Unlike you, who gets to decide what I mean, irrespective of what I say.

    Sorry your’re so stupid and irrational I stopped reading after your moaning about lynching.

    No apology needed. It’s standard operating procedure for you. It gives you a good excuse to close down any discussion.

    Hardly stunning ignorance, an understandable gap in my knowledge.

    Well it is surprising, considering how much you write about racism. Anyone with any more than a very basic knowledge of racism, and the history of it, knows the significance of lynching in modern US history.

    I mean from your stupid ramblings in that first paragraph alone, the few sentences I read, demands I know every facet of American History.

    That’s a patently ridiculous claim. But I guess understandable if you think that lynching is just a minor footnote in modern US history. And don’t care enough to determine otherwise. I would have thought after it came up previously you’d have carried out at least some basic research. Being that you like to type on the internet about racism and all.

    I mean do you seriously think because I didn’t know that the US gives food-stamps instead of a fixed momentary benefit, I can’t speak about welfare or benefits at all?

    Of course not. However I was surprised that you’d never carried out any internet research, or done any reading of any articles, during your internet-life on the topic in which food stamps was mentioned. It’s a rather large feature of welfare in the US, and you like to talk about welfare on a US blog.

    This just proves how stupid you are – yet again.

    Well I DON’T demand that you know every facet of American history, and I don’t think that not having heard of food stamps means you can’t speak about welfare or benefits at all. So I guess it doesn’t ‘prove’ anything of the sort.

    Lynching means murder/execution by the mob, a generic act. I did not know that word was racially loaded as it’s a generic term – I’m sure everyone is aware of this apart from you.

    Well not everyone, but certainly anyone with a passing knowledge of US history and/or culture. There’s no use trying to wave it off as something obscure. It’s a fundamental part of modern US history, and plays a significant role in a lot of US culture (and has done for a century). So anyone with a passing knowledge, or decent general knowledge, would know that it is certainly a racially loaded term.

    They lynched witches as well, by hanging more often than not in fact, yet I don’t mind my language when discussing the local pagan witch.

    Yikes. I don’t even know where to start with that comparison. Perhaps I just won’t

    Nor did I know the relevance when a former US Judge used a similar term (techno-lynching or whatever)

    Well yes, that follows. But then that is a very specific sub-reference. I hadn’t heard that one either.

    Talking to you is like talking to a rapist who can’t get an erection, because he doesn’t understand how erections work, he just likes thinking he’s raping people.

    Wow, that’s impressive too. You should enter a competition for the world’s worst analogies.

    Thumb up 2

  37. Iconoclast

    Metaphor (Bold emphasis added):

    1: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language — compare simile

    So we can dispense with this distracting nonsense that there is a world of difference between “metaphor” and “analogy”, and that poosh “really” used one while claiming the other.

    The analogy is patently ridiculous. There is no doubt about it.

    Your thin-skinned overreaction is patently ridiculous. There is no doubt about it.

    Don’t know why you got involved.

    Don’t know why you got involved, either.

    How did I misrepresent it?

    I already told you. Apparently, you didn’t listen. No surprise.

    Unless you want to take over and explain it.

    See? That’s the problem. There is nothing to “explain”, unless one is being deliberately dense.

    So again, what did the kid do to the grandfather that is the equivalent of what the whites of South Africa did to the blacks?

    And again, either the metaphor is simply beyond your understanding, or you’re being deliberately dense. This has nothing to do with “what the whites of South Africa did to the blacks”. If you want to say that Mandela’s actions were justified, then say it.

    Ask Poosh.

    No. You are the one asking the stupid questions, here, not poosh. You are the one bringing up “what the whites of South Africa did to the blacks”, not poosh.

    I certainly do.

    You certainly don’t act like it.

    Buffoon?

    Look it up. Or have your mom do it for you.

    No need to use your brain.

    You certainly haven’t been…

    Thumb up 6

  38. Iconoclast

    Gotta love it when a guy who had never even heard of lynching wants to talk about racism.

    I know that CM likes to pretend he’s an expert on All Things American, and hell, maybe he is. But I personally never really associated “lynching” with “racism”. No, growing up on westerns (movies and TV shows), I tended to associate “lynching” with the Old West, cattle rustling, frontiersmen, stage coaches being held up, and so on. A few years ago, there was a commercial advertising Pace Picante Sauce, which happens to be made in San Antonio, Texas. It was a bunch of cowboys out on the range getting ready for supper after a long day. One of them produces a jar of picante sauce, and the others complain of its lack of flavor. One of them says something along the lines of, “This ain’t Pace Picante Sauce. Pace is made by good folks down in San Antonio. This stuff is made in…(looks at jar label)… New York City!!”

    The others chime in, “New York City??!!?”

    The leader of the group, looking at the cook, says to the others, “Get a rope!!”

    I never knew that commercial was so racially charged, CM. Thanks for setting me straight. I mean, I was born and raised as an American, but my cultural education was obviously lacking, until I encountered you!

    It may be an unfortunate fact of American History that the majority of lynchings that happened in America took place in the South after the Civil War, but that fact doesn’t necessarily translate into “lynching == racism”, at least not universally.

    One more thing — racism isn’t confined to the USA, in spite of what Liberal sources may preach, so there is no reason to expect a link between American lynchings and racism worldwide. One should be free to talk about racism even if they never heard of lynching (assuming “lynching == racism” in the first place). The one doesn’t preclude the other, and it’s typical of CM’s haughty self-righteousness to imply that it does.

    Thumb up 10

  39. AlexInCT

    The leader of the group, looking at the cook, says to the others, “Get a rope!!”

    Absolutely correct Iconoclast. Lynching was the preferred method of meting out the death penalty in frontier America, and it stayed around until 1936, when it was replaced with first the electric chair and then lethal injection. The Europeans preferred the guillotine, but our old west inhabitants didn’t like anything that bourgeois, and the Euros eventually gave up on the death penalty under the delusion that this made them somewhat more enlightened or something stupid like that. Racial lynching’s, despite the folklore, were not restricted to just the south: they happened in the NE as well.

    Blue staters want to pretend that racism is not something that’s part & parcel of their psyche as well, but I have encountered far more blatant and nasty racism in blue states – in practically every case it was being done by white liberals or blacks against whites, or even blacks against other blacks (natives vs. non-natives) – than I have encountered in the south. And I am not alone there. But the left has a narrative, racism was, until Team Obama overused it and finally managed to tarnish that weapon they so loved using, a powerful tool to silence the opposition with.

    For the record. I will state that I have a problem with Obama’s color. I hate fucking reds (that’s communists not native Americans for you people too stupid to get the reference).

    One more thing — racism isn’t confined to the USA, in spite of what Liberal sources may preach, so there is no reason to expect a link between American lynchings and racism worldwide.

    If you need proof just attend a soccer game anywhere in Europe. I once saw them throw bananas at a black player while the fans chanted “monkey” at him, and I heard that practice is still alive & well even today. There was such a story in the news just recently. I won’t tell you about my experiences in Asia which were worse. They have very little respect for even other Asians and Asian cultures. About the only place I can say I didn’t see much racism (there it was all about class) was in South/Central America. And then there was the Middle East. Sheesh. Of course, these collectivists & believers in collectivism will pretend that racism can only be found in America, and specifically in the US. Narrative and all that.

    Thumb up 6

  40. Poosh

    Nope, CM is right.

    Because I wasn’t aware of the American cultural significance of ‘lynching’ (which includes burning by the stake or any form of execution, so long as it’s done by mob rule, that’s how a non-American would take that phrase as … that’s what it means) I can’t speak about: sexual harassment accusations leveled at Herman Cain. That’s the context.

    Europeans (french!!!)) used the guillotine which is supposed to be more civilised, as Alex points out. Bravo.

    He’s so filled with assburgers he took the Two Broke Girls reference literally as well.

    I don’t know why CM is so flat-out stupid but it’s a problematic that he’s allowed to vote – it baffles me how he can get so confused and get so many words out of all of us over something so simple and insignificant. I think he gets off on seeing people give him so much time. As Jim used to say, “don’t feed that troll”.

    Thumb up 4

  41. Seattle Outcast

    Just to be clear, a proper hanging is not a lynching. A noose and a short drop will snap the neck and kill quickly. A lynching is letting someone strangle to death at the end of a rope – if you want to, you can prolong the experience for some time as a form of torture.

    As someone that grew up on watching Westerns, I never associated lynching with racism unless people were specifically talking about KKK activities. It’s only been recently that various race-baiters like $harpton and Jack$on have tried to equate the two words.

    Look at it this way: was it “racist” when the mob lynched Mussolini?

    Thumb up 2

  42. Seattle Outcast

    Do I expect every American I meet to know what fireworks have to do with Catholicism ?

    I have no idea what you are talking about, and I’m married to a catholic.

    Thumb up 2

  43. CM

    I know that CM likes to pretend he’s an expert on All Things American, and hell, maybe he is.

    I don’t pretend that at all. I’m not even close to being an expert.

    I never knew that commercial was so racially charged, CM. Thanks for setting me straight. I mean, I was born and raised as an American, but my cultural education was obviously lacking, until I encountered you!

    What happened to that “context” thing you mentioned earlier? Did that just fly out the window conveniently all of a sudden? The WHOLE point was that Poosh didn’t know about the connection between lynching and race, in US.

    It may be an unfortunate fact of American History that the majority of lynchings that happened in America took place in the South after the Civil War, but that fact doesn’t necessarily translate into “lynching == racism”, at least not universally.

    Again, for some reason you’re ignoring the context of the discussion and pretending this occurred in a vacuum.

    One more thing — racism isn’t confined to the USA, in spite of what Liberal sources may preach,

    Oh that burns!
    Gosh, what an insight.

    so there is no reason to expect a link between American lynchings and racism worldwide.

    We’re not talking about ‘worldwide’ We’re talking about a guy who likes to get into discussions about racism on a US blog.

    One should be free to talk about racism even if they never heard of lynching (assuming “lynching == racism” in the first place). The one doesn’t preclude the other, and it’s typical of CM’s haughty self-righteousness to imply that it does.

    And it’s typical that you felt the need to jump in, and to ignore context, to attack me. And start throwing silly Alex-style “libs are tards” type myopic binary nonsense around. As if it doesn’t weaken the rest of what you say. All for the sake of trying to get the biscuit a little more soggy.

    Of course, these collectivists & believers in collectivism will pretend that racism can only be found in America, and specifically in the US.

    Why do you always feel the need to make shit up all the time Alex?

    Because I wasn’t aware of the American cultural significance of ‘lynching’ (which includes burning by the stake or any form of execution, so long as it’s done by mob rule, that’s how a non-American would take that phrase as … that’s what it means) I can’t speak about: sexual harassment accusations leveled at Herman Cain. That’s the context.

    Of course you can speak about that. I never said you couldn’t, or shouldn’t. The lynching aspect of that discussion was very much at the periphery.

    He’s so filled with assburgers he took the Two Broke Girls reference literally as well.

    It was much more fun to pretend that it was consistent with not knowing the historical context of lynching in the US.

    I don’t know why CM is so flat-out stupid but it’s a problematic that he’s allowed to vote

    I’ve even voted in the UK if it makes you feel any worse.

    it baffles me how he can get so confused and get so many words out of all of us over something so simple and insignificant

    I was interested to see how the analogy worked because I couldn’t see how it did. Turns out you didn’t really mean it. Or just a little bit. Or something.
    You could have just said it was a ‘throw-away line’ not intended for scrutiny a lot earlier.

    As someone that grew up on watching Westerns, I never associated lynching with racism unless people were specifically talking about KKK activities.

    Well presumably you and Iconoclast are white. Presumably if you were black your associations might be a little different.

    Look at it this way: was it “racist” when the mob lynched Mussolini?

    Was there a history of the mob hanging white men in Italy?

    Thumb up 1

  44. Poosh

    Amazing levels of stupidity. It’s a good thing you don’t apply your tiny mind to things like economics or politics, CMburgers.

    That being said, I probably do know more about racism in the US than CM. For example I know the primary target of the KKK were blacks and evil right-wingers – which must annoy CM. And that the KKK were a military wing serving the Democrats – which must annoy CM!

    Must dash, have an African American Studies class to go to!

    Thumb up 1

  45. CM

    For example I know the primary target of the KKK were blacks and evil right-wingers – which must annoy CM. And that the KKK were a military wing serving the Democrats – which must annoy CM!

    Why ON EARTH would it annoy me, pray tell?
    Please explain so my tiny brain can understand why I should be annoyed.

    Thumb up 1

  46. CM

    Look at it this way: was it “racist” when the mob lynched Mussolini?

    I thought he was shot, and was already well dead (a day or so) when hung upside down on meat hooks from the roof of a gas station?

    Thumb up 0

  47. Seattle Outcast

    Ah, my bad. When I was a kid it was “common knowledge” that Mussolini was lynched from a telegraph pole by a mob. Or maybe it was some other fascist leader.

    Regardless, the point still stands – in order for lynching to be “racist”, it needs specific context. You just can’t make your blanket assumption that the very word is racially tinged in the US. Perhaps it is for a small minority of people, but for most people it isn’t.

    Thumb up 1

  48. CM

    Regardless, the point still stands – in order for lynching to be “racist”, it needs specific context.

    What about when race is the specific context, as it was in the relevant discussion. Is it relevant then?

    Thumb up 2

  49. Xetrov

    A good read – http://lonelyconservative.com/2013/12/obamas-response-to-the-passing-of-margaret-thatcher-a-far-cry-from-that-of-nelson-mandela/

    The left had no problem trashing Thatcher when she passed, but pointing out the factual record of Nelson Mandela is racist.

    Pointing out how he was a terrorist? Racist.
    Pointing out how South Africa is now the murder capital of the world? Racist.
    Pointing out that blacks in South Africa are plagued with AIDS? Racist.
    Pointing out how Mandela was a proud supporter of Fidel Castro, who had no problem imprisoning gays and blacks? Racist.
    Pointing out how being white in South Africa could lead to one’s rape or murder? Racist.
    Pointing out how being black in South Africa could lead to one’s rape or murder? Racist.
    Pointing out how being a child in South Africa can lead to one’s rape or murder? Racist.

    Thou shall not speak ill of Saint Nelson of the Blessed Necklace!

    Thumb up 12

  50. Seattle Outcast

    What about when race is the specific context, as it was in the relevant discussion. Is it relevant then?

    Left for you to decide? No. You’re an idiot. I wouldn’t let you decide on what flavor ice cream to get even if they only had vanilla and chocolate.

    I’ll let you submit the EXACT QUOTE to me, and I’ll let you know if it’s “racist” or not.

    Thumb up 2

  51. CM

    I realise this is not relevant (although the author tries to make it so) but in terms of the whole “first thing Obama did was send Churchill bust back to the British” thing – apparently the one returned was a copy given to Bush by Blair. As is usual practice when a new President arrives, the curator’s office removed all of the art lent specifically for Bush’s Oval Office, including that copy. The current bust of Churchill in the WH is apparently the original from the 1960s.

    Where actually are all these accusations?

    Thumb up 0

  52. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 2

  53. Iconoclast

    What happened to that “context” thing you mentioned earlier? Did that just fly out the window conveniently all of a sudden?

    Heh, you tell me. After all, I am responding to this statement you made:

    Gotta love it when a guy who had never even heard of lynching wants to talk about racism.

    CM, December 7, 2013 4:29 PM

    You just dropped that little gem into the discussion out of the blue, as a cheap jab at poosh. I don’t recall you being too concerned with “context” when you did so, either, so maybe it did just fly out the window, but it did so at your beckoning, not mine. It wasn’t unitl the following day that you bothered to try and restore “context” by providing a link to the back-history of your little jab, but frankly, by then, it was too late.

    The real point is that “lynching” is not automatically associated with “racism”, as my example points out. You can hide behind “context” all you want, but you are the one who forfeited context in the first place.

    Again, for some reason you’re ignoring the context of the discussion and pretending this occurred in a vacuum.

    I’m not “pretending” anything — I’m following your lead.

    And it’s typical that you felt the need to jump in, and to ignore context, to attack me

    Aww, you poor baby. But again, you are the one who forfeited any claims to “context”.

    As if it doesn’t weaken the rest of what you say.

    If what I say is so “weak”, then why bother responding to it?

    Thumb up 8

  54. Seattle Outcast

    I would think that before anyone starts yelling “that’s racist” the context needs to be one of racially motivated violence for it to be valid – something along the lines of a clan murder.

    Lynching has too much a varied history, even in the US, to automatically be associated with racially motivated violence. If don’t know enough of US culture to even get the common “old west” connection, just shut up.

    Thumb up 1

  55. Poosh

    CM says: ” What about when race is the specific context, as it was in the relevant discussion. Is it relevant then? ”

    Which is actually a lie. The context was SEXUAL HARASSMENT PANDA and Herman Cain.

    CM says: “Gotta love it when a guy who had never even heard of lynching wants to talk about racism.”

    As someone who has actually been subject to racism – I think I can talk about racism.

    I don’t need lectures about racism from a white person, thank you very much.

    Thumb up 1

  56. Poosh

    This isn’t directed at CM but rather just an informercial about his stupidity but …

    Even worst for CM, if you read the thread that he magically linked to in little time (he must bookmark such things for future reference) here’s the full quote:

    Poosh: “I am confused as to the lynching reference. What does that have to do with race? Lynching is exactly the word one might use in this context but anyway, whatever – it’s like when JD from Scrubs says “slaves” infront of his new black girlfriend and gets into a panic.”

    This is in reference to Rich’s reference to “HIGH-TECH LYNCHING”. I did not know how racially charged that generic (to a non-US citizen) phrase is, which is a cultural difference as I’m sure one might agree. Later on CM also jumps on the “omgz you didn’t know the US used foodstamps” comment, which he seems to constantly use as some form of “argument” against me. Great rhetorical skills there…

    Thumb up 1

  57. Seattle Outcast

    I don’t need lectures about racism from a white person, thank you very much.

    I don’t need them from anybody.

    As my Asian wife put it when she learned a bit about my dating history prior to her, “you’ve slept with the UN.” Even more to the point, growing up in the USA, the last thing any of us needs is yet another moron with an agenda that wants to lecture us all about the latest thing in racism they “discovered.”

    We know racism when we see it, you don’t have to go invent more of it.

    Thumb up 4

  58. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  59. CM

    Correction: Rich was quoting from a piece which referenced Politico.

    In relation to my question: “What is the direct link between sexual harassment and lynching?”:
    Yes, I can certainly see that ‘lynching someone’ is a term that could be used in the context of assuming they are guilty because of a number of sexual harassment claims (or any other collection of potential evidence about wrong-doing), before they’ve had a trial, or ability to defend themselves. It doesn’t necessarily have to do with race. It could apply to a white person. And yes, the ‘old west’ is the context of the use of the term in that way. That, I certainly get. But it’s simply untrue to say that the term was introduced in that context in that thread. It was introduced in a racial context.

    Thumb up 0

  60. Poosh

    It goes on and on and gets worse and worse. If he’s not flat out being thick, he’s using bizarre rhetorical methods which fail at even the basic level.

    I really shouldn’t have responded to him after years of experiencing his inability to think or read. It’s almost as if he projects text onto what people actually write and then just responds to that instead. It’s my own fault. I thought he’d go up a few IQ points the last few months, big mistake. Allah forgive me.

    Thumb up 1

  61. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  62. Seattle Outcast

    It’s like a cosmic level shitstorm of stupid – frankly, I’m kind of amazed that it’s gotten this warped without a total implosion. I mean, the cognitive dissonance displayed on a daily basis is just nuts – it literally comes across as a religious fanatic that takes everything as just more proof of their faith, even when it directly contradicts it. One way or another, they will force it to “fit” into the proscribed limits of their belief system – evaluating it any other way isn’t even possible to them.

    Then again, that we are witnessing the ravings of a fanatic is rather obvious – the more you show them to be wrong the louder they scream at you. They have too much invested to give it all up, so they just dig in their heels and double down on the crazy. You cannot expect any change until their entire belief system self destructs (usually in a grand epiphany when something is just too much to be ignored) and they are actually open to new paradigms of reality.

    Thumb up 5

  63. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  64. Iconoclast

    I never left out context in order to distort anything.

    Oh, not intentionally, perhaps, but you did leave out context wither you care to admit it or not.

    The context was always there.

    Umm, yes, context is always there, but that’s irrelevant when someone ignores context. Which you did.

    Nonsense. If this is the best you can do then I don’t know why you’ve bothered.

    The nonsense is on your side, and whether this is “the ‘best’ I can do” is irrelevant to the fact that you did forfeit context, and so bleating about it now is simply duplicity.

    As above – nonsense.

    On your side, yes.

    Just because you might not have been aware of the context doesn’t mean that I attempted to distort something by leaving it out.

    Again, whether you “attempted to distort something” is utterly irrelevant to the fact that you did leave out context.

    I’ll sit here and repeat this ad nauseam as long as you keep denying it ad nauseam.

    But at least you admit that you distorted by ignoring crucial context.

    I see that you’re just making shit up again. Hypocrite.

    As I said, perhaps you should have acknowledged that your metaphor/analogy was only meant as a ‘throw away’, and shouldn’t be subjected to scrutiny. But you decided not to.

    The real point here is that he shouldn’t have had to in the first place. I mean, it seemed pretty evident to me, at least, that he was just voicing a subjective opinion. He was just saying that he was indifferent about Mandela’s death, and explained why, using a metaphor/analogy/simile/whateverthefuckyouwannacallit. Everyone else seemed to have got it.

    Except you. Of course.

    And so you decided to mock that which you admittedly failed to comprehend, which is real classy, to use your vernacular.

    Just because poosh said something with which you obviously disagree, you decided to raise a worthless stink over your own misunderstanding. Turning what poosh said into “Mandela is like a rapist” is intellectual dishonesty at it finest, which strikes me as utter hypocrisy coming from one who “wants to discuss”. If you really want to discuss, then mockery and intellectual bankruptcy are hardly the best methods for achieving such a goal.

    As Iconoclast would say: Aww, you poor baby.

    Must have been effective…

    …it’s plenty entertaining seeing you holding each other and crying.

    Either you’re hallucinating or just making shit up. Again.

    Thumb up 8

  65. Poosh

    When has CM ever actually understood context? Or not actually distorted what someone said? Or flat out never understood anything that was being said despite it being explained to him in detail? When has he ever understood details? Or grasped rational thinking?

    He doesn’t care about the real world or what people actually say. He just wants to project the insane flying monkeys of his brain onto what other people say.

    I don’t think CM actually knows what “context” is, for him it’s whatever is convenient for him.

    Thumb up 3

  66. CM

    Yet again, what context did I leave out and how did it alter the meaning of anything?

    This seems to be the 11th hour claim here:

    You just dropped that little gem into the discussion out of the blue, as a cheap jab at poosh. I don’t recall you being too concerned with “context” when you did so, either, so maybe it did just fly out the window, but it did so at your beckoning, not mine. It wasn’t unitl the following day that you bothered to try and restore “context” by providing a link to the back-history of your little jab, but frankly, by then, it was too late.

    The real point is that “lynching” is not automatically associated with “racism”, as my example points out. You can hide behind “context” all you want, but you are the one who forfeited context in the first place.

    I provided the ‘back-history’ as soon as it obvious that Poosh clearly didn’t know what I was talking about.
    I didn’t forfeit shit.
    You, on other hand, are STILL determined to ignore the relevant context within which the terms was raised (where Rich actively said ‘racism’). Bizarre.

    I’ll sit here and repeat this ad nauseam as long as you keep denying it ad nauseam.

    I have no doubt. But then you’d be no better than Poosh, SO and Alex, who throw accusations around as often as possible but can never back them up.

    I see that you’re just making shit up again. Hypocrite.

    You inherently acknowledged it by saying that you were following my lead. So no, no shit made up. Not my style. It’s always far too obvious.

    The real point here is that he shouldn’t have had to in the first place. I mean, it seemed pretty evident to me, at least, that he was just voicing a subjective opinion. He was just saying that he was indifferent about Mandela’s death, and explained why, using a metaphor/analogy/simile/whateverthefuckyouwannacallit.

    And I just mocked one of his metaphors/analogies which didn’t work at all (which he later acknowledged when he made it clear that it wasn’t intended to be subjected to scrutiny). Again, he could have responded very early on in a way he did later, and that would have been the end of it. But no, you cuoldn’t possibly entertain that possibility. Apparently it’s simply beyond you.

    Everyone else seemed to have got it.

    How do you conclude that? It’s the kind of nonsense that many people can’t be bothered responding to. It got 8 downthumbs (and until I drew attention to it, 1 person in agreement). Yes I realise that could mean people ‘got it’ but disagreed.

    When has CM ever actually understood context? Or not actually distorted what someone said? Or flat out never understood anything that was being said despite it being explained to him in detail? When has he ever understood details? Or grasped rational thinking?

    He doesn’t care about the real world or what people actually say. He just wants to project the insane flying monkeys of his brain onto what other people say.

    I don’t think CM actually knows what “context” is, for him it’s whatever is convenient for him.

    Another substance-free post; just empty accusations and nothing more.
    I understand context fine. Which is why I pointed out that your analogy doesn’t work at all – there is a whole lot of crucial context behind Mandela’s actions/life that your analogy doesn’t contain. When I referenced a previous discussion I assumed that you’d have known what I meant. When you didn’t I immediately provided the link. There was no lack of context to any of that.
    But keep the personal abuse and unfounded accusations flowing if you like. It’s very telling.

    Thumb up 0

  67. CM

    Not a damned thing, obviously.

    Well yeah, that’s why I ask. What is he referring to?
    But I’m sure it meant nothing and he’s not referring to anything, so I’m an idiot for enquiring.
    That would be consistent.

    Thumb up 0

  68. Iconoclast

    I provided the ‘back-history’ as soon as it obvious that Poosh clearly didn’t know what I was talking about.

    Which pretty well establishes that the context was missing.

    I didn’t forfeit shit.

    Believe whatever you want, no matter how detached from reality it is…

    You, on other hand, are STILL determined to ignore the relevant context within which the terms was raised (where Rich actively said ‘racism’).

    Because it’s irrelevant to the fact that you did forfeit that context, which you tacitly admit up above.

    You inherently acknowledged it by saying that you were following my lead.

    What I acknowledged was your forfeiture of the context. I made no “admission” — that part you clearly made up.

    So no, no shit made up.

    As I said before, believe whatever you want, no matter how detached from reality it is.

    And I just mocked one of his metaphors/analogies which didn’t work at all…

    It didn’t work in your mind, of course, but that’s ultimately inconsequential. You still mocked something you didn’t comprehend. Classy.

    Again, he could have responded very early on in a way he did later…

    And again, there should have been no need for him to do so, save for your talent for being obtuse.

    How do you conclude that?

    Who says I “concluded” anything? You do comprehend the word “seems”, don’t you?

    Thumb up 7

  69. Poosh

    Isn’t it pointless, at this point, trying to fisking CM’s senile ramblings?

    I mean I make a reference that one would expect someone to grow wiser with age, he gets completely confused about it.

    The Herman Cain post is for all to see. CM is just flat out weird and assburgering in the way he sees things. I wonder if he actually sees the same words we do.

    I think we’re just playing CM’s game as we’ve devoted a lot of time and effort trying to explain to a class clown very simple concepts. You have to accept CM has bad wiring and simply cannot understand the kind of concepts we all take for granted. I mean, the tool even posts links he thinks will vindicate him, which actually just prove how wrong he is.

    Thumb up 1

  70. CM

    Which pretty well establishes that the context was missing.

    Now you’re just being obtuse. There was no attempt to hide or change the context to distort anything.
    If you can’t see the difference then I can’t help you.
    You’re starting to give the impression that you’ll defend anything if it provides the opportunity to have a go at me.

    Because it’s irrelevant to the fact that you did forfeit that context, which you tacitly admit up above.

    Hang on, I thought I was lying and making shit up about that?
    I didn’t immediately (within the same post) provide the detailed background to my comment, but that happens all the time (and yet nobody calls anyone on ‘context’ because it would be ridiculous). You’re being desparately obtuse.

    What I acknowledged was your forfeiture of the context. I made no “admission” — that part you clearly made up.

    So explain what “I’m following your lead” meant then? How can it mean anything else but “I’m only doing it because you did”?
    Again I didn’t forfeit anything. If Poosh or anyone else required any background all they had to do was ask. When they did, I immediately linked to the relevant thread so anyone could see and judge it for themselves.

    It didn’t work in your mind, of course, but that’s ultimately inconsequential. You still mocked something you didn’t comprehend. Classy.

    Have you not actually read the thread? Even Poosh stepped away from it, implying that it wasn’t meant to be subjected to any scrutiny, that it was just a throw-away line. He even said the final part (the kicker, where the grandkid, who is presumably at least part-black doesn’t want to bring up the rape because his grandfaqther is……um, also black) wasn’t even part of the attempted analogy/metaphor.
    Rather than preaching about reality, how about dealing in it instead?

    And again, there should have been no need for him to do so, save for your talent for being obtuse.

    Are you just following my lead again then?

    Who says I “concluded” anything? You do comprehend the word “seems”, don’t you?

    I do indeed, but I’ll spell it out for you as clearly you don’t. How do you conclude that everyone else seemed to have got it?

    Isn’t it pointless, at this point, trying to fisking CM’s senile ramblings?

    Fisking would suggest a line-by-line response. But you and Iconoclast pick and choose.

    I mean I make a reference that one would expect someone to grow wiser with age, he gets completely confused about it.

    The concept of getting wiser with age I totally get, but over the course of a few months…..that’s much more specific,

    The Herman Cain post is for all to see. CM is just flat out weird and assburgering in the way he sees things. I wonder if he actually sees the same words we do.

    I wonder that to. How anyone could argue that the context wasn’t race is beyond me. It was explicitly raised in that context by Rich and you explicitly responded in confusion.

    I think we’re just playing CM’s game as we’ve devoted a lot of time and effort trying to explain to a class clown very simple concepts. You have to accept CM has bad wiring and simply cannot understand the kind of concepts we all take for granted. I mean, the tool even posts links he thinks will vindicate him, which actually just prove how wrong he is.

    Whatever gets you through the night Poosh.

    Thumb up 0

  71. Iconoclast

    Now you’re just being obtuse.

    Yeah, sure, whatever you say.

    There was no attempt to hide or change the context to distort anything.

    I never claimed that you “attempted to hide or change the context”, only that you forfeited it. I even allowed that you didn’t do so deliberately (emphasis added):

    I never left out context in order to distort anything.

    Oh, not intentionally, perhaps, but you did leave out context wither you care to admit it or not.

    Iconoclast, December 11, 2013 10:03 AM

    If you can’t see the difference then I can’t help you.

    Oh, I can see the difference. It’s just irrelevant, because I never claimed that you were “distorting” anything, only that you left out context when dropping in your little jab, and so whining about context subsequently is transparently disingenuous.

    You’re starting to give the impression that you’ll defend anything if it provides the opportunity to have a go at me.

    You are obviously free to cop any “impression” you want, but it takes two to tango, chief.

    Because it’s irrelevant to the fact that you did forfeit that context, which you tacitly admit up above.

    Hang on, I thought I was lying and making shit up about that?

    I didn’t accuse you of “lying”, per se, but of making shit up, namely, the idiotically lame notion that I “admitted” omitting context. Which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with
    “Because it’s irrelevant to the fact that you did forfeit that context, which you tacitly admit up above.” I didn’t say you lied or made shit up about that at all.

    I didn’t immediately (within the same post) provide the detailed background to my comment, but that happens all the time (and yet nobody calls anyone on ‘context’ because it would be ridiculous).

    Maybe, but you are the one whining about context, here, after dropping a context-free statement into the context of this thread, for no other reason than throwing a cheap jab at someone. In the context of this thread, lynching is irrelevant, but you decided to dredge it up anyway, just to hurl an insult, acting like someone was somehow unworthy to discuss a certain topic because they were unfamiliar with lynching. And when I call you on your shit, you act all indignant, whining that I’m “having a go” at you. How many times have you had a go at me for using the word “pretend”, for example? Or “knee-jerk”? Or over my debate style overall? Hmm? Your duplicity is a thing to behold, for sure.

    You’re being desparately obtuse.

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    So explain what “I’m following your lead” meant then?

    It means I took your little jab at face value, not concerned with any potential, possible back-history “context”. If we were to assume that anytime anyone said anything, there was some back-history of that thing we needed to be aware of before being “allowed” to comment, well, even you should see how patently absurd that would be.

    How can it mean anything else but “I’m only doing it because you did”?

    If your mind is already made up that it can’t, then you’re simply close-minded.

    I suppose it’s eminently possible that you had the whole back-history and context in mind when you dropped in your little jab, and I suppose you merely assumed everyone was familiar with it. Well, you were wrong. And since I admittedly suck at mind-reading, it certainly looked to me like you were making a universal link between “lynching” and “racism”.

    Again I didn’t forfeit anything.

    Again, you did. The fact that you had to subsequently link to the original context pretty much proves it.

    If Poosh or anyone else required any background all they had to do was ask.

    Which is irrelevant to the fact that “requiring any background” shouldn’t be necessary in the first place.

    Even Poosh stepped away from it, implying that it wasn’t meant to be subjected to any scrutiny, that it was just a throw-away line.

    So? maybe he’s just tired of dealing with your obtuse nonsense. I, on the other hand, am just getting warmed up…

    How do you conclude that everyone else seemed to have got it?

    Nobody else bellyached that it “didn’t work”. Only you did. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise…

    Thumb up 7

  72. Poosh

    I didn’t “step away” from anything or any of the other crap CM says, obliviously. At this point the scumbag is basically just making stuff up. I really can’t be bothered with it. He grabs on to anything he can possibly warp and warps it.

    As with everything he’s ever written, he’s thick and you can’t argue with a thick person. He hasn’t got the intellectual power to engage in any debate. He just doesn’t understand what people say. This has always been the case but it’s slightly shocking how bad he’s got. The stupid., dumb spastic can’t just doesn’t see words the way non-idiots do. We’re all running around in circles trying to accommodate his mental disabilities.

    It’s just boring responding to him or even acknowledging him. As others have said, just ignore him.

    Thumb up 2

  73. CM

    I never claimed that you “attempted to hide or change the context”, only that you forfeited it. I even allowed that you didn’t do so deliberately (emphasis added):

    Then this is overly pedantic and ultimately meaningless. It’s not an equivalent. When I suggest that someone has left out context, it means that the context changes something, or is somehow meaningful. I’ve never seen anyone else make an accusation about context when it’s meaningless. I could suggest that almost everything you post “leaves out context” for a million different reasons (that I can claim I count as ‘context’), but I don’t (and won’t) because it would be transparently ridiculous (and therefore ultimately counter-productive – as you are demonstrating).

    ….so whining about context subsequently is transparently disingenuous.

    That’s a patently ridiculous argument. They are not even remotely comparable (as explained above), even if I were to accept that by not providing the specific background to my comment I left out context.

    Maybe,

    LOL. A lot more than maybe. Undeniable fact is what it is.

    but you are the one whining about context, here, after dropping a context-free statement into the context of this thread, for no other reason than throwing a cheap jab at someone.

    No, you are the one whining about context here. And you were the first to mention context (I mentioned it in response). Way to try and misrepresent the situation though. Again, why bother, when it’s so transparently wrong?

    The relevant context of my comment was Poosh implying that I’m a ‘racist-in-the-closet’ because he associated rape with a black male, and he thought that played some part in my mocking his attempted analogy/metaphor. But that’s interesting how you see my response as the initial jab, not his implication which pre-empted it. How typical.

    In the context of this thread, lynching is irrelevant, but you decided to dredge it up anyway, just to hurl an insult, acting like someone was somehow unworthy to discuss a certain topic because they were unfamiliar with lynching.

    See above. My comment was about a wider one about people making claims about racism, in direct response to Poosh’s comment (which was so very obviously directed at me – unless you’re going to be obtuse about that now as well?).

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    You’re yet to demonstrate that.

    It means I took your little jab at face value, not concerned with any potential, possible back-history “context”.

    You’ve avoided my question. You inherently acknowledged it by your choice of wording. I did not invent your admission. Your statement doesn’t make ANY sense any other way.

    If we were to assume that anytime anyone said anything, there was some back-history of that thing we needed to be aware of before being “allowed” to comment, well, even you should see how patently absurd that would be.

    I totally agree. But if someone doesn’t remember or know about the necessary background (but they wish to comment about it) then they can just ask (and that’s what happened). Nothing patently absurb about it. I’m constantly told that no further evidence for a whole lot of stuff isn’t required to be provided, as it already has been determined earlier (i.e it’s some sort of ‘blog truth’). I can choose to probe further (by asking about it), or leave it.

    If your mind is already made up that it can’t, then you’re simply close-minded.

    Nice try, but it was then I wouldn’t have asked you to provide an alternative explanation for your statement (which you have have yet to provide).

    I suppose it’s eminently possible that you had the whole back-history and context in mind when you dropped in your little jab,

    WTF? Why else would I have said it?
    And again, it was in response to a thinly-veiled accusation of racism. Please stop pretending it came out of nowhere.

    and I suppose you merely assumed everyone was familiar with it.

    I assumed Poosh would have been yeah.

    Well, you were wrong.

    I was, about Poosh not recalling it.

    And since I admittedly suck at mind-reading, it certainly looked to me like you were making a universal link between “lynching” and “racism”.

    The link I was making was between Poosh having shown zero knowledge about a significant part of the modern history of racism, and yet making comments about who might be racist. As if he’s an expert in racism. Of course a gap in his knowledge doesn’t preclude him discussing racism (just in case you or anyone else wants to raise that again).

    Again, you did. The fact that you had to subsequently link to the original context pretty much proves it.

    Only by your insane context standards which have arrived all of a sudden for the purposes of opposing me.

    So? maybe he’s just tired of dealing with your obtuse nonsense.

    Doubt it. He did it quite specifically. When he’s tired of dealing with me he follows a distinctly different behaviour pattern.

    I, on the other hand, am just getting warmed up…

    You be sure to let me know when you actually find something. Or you can just keep inventing ridiculous new standards for the sole purpose of opposing me. That’s also fun.

    Nobody else bellyached that it “didn’t work”. Only you did. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise…

    You’re the one making the claim so you demonstrate it. Maybe nobody could be bothered. Or maybe they just didn’t care (particularly as it was an attack on Mandela and they’re also sick of all the unbalanced coverage). There is no way you can suggest that a lack of response is evidence that everyone else ‘seems’ to have gotten it.

    Thumb up 0

  74. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  75. Poosh

    Not talking *to* CM, just pointing out how stupid he is to other people.
    ________
    Does he know has blindingly thick he is? This is ONE of the super smart intellectual’s argument:

    A) You have given an opinion of psychology and racism in the year 2013.

    B) You aren’t aware of the cultural significance of MODERN references to Act X (lynching), in a racial sense, in a foreign country that has nothing to do with you (in terms of racism) referring to a period in the PAST – all of which has nothing to do at all with Premise A.

    Conclusion: Therefore you can’t talk about psychology and racism.
    ________

    A theory on underlying racism in modern liberals does not need any knowledge of history at any other tim, you know this is obvious to people who aren’t thick, no idea why I’m typing. CM has serious issues with rationality, which makes sense as he’s a liberal and they’re notorious for simply not grasping Reason as a discipline. > fin!

    As anyone who has been subject to racism can tell you, you don’t need some liberal twit to come along and tell you, you can’t talk about racism or offer insights into it, because you don’t know “lynching” is such a racially loaded term in a foreign country.

    Everyone else has pretty much nailed CM down three times over.

    Thumb up 4

  76. CM

    If I were to write an entire parody post, that would essentially be it.

    Especially the first line (although a little too obvious perhaps), and also the part where you STILL try to claim that it was only ‘techno-lynching’ that you were unaware of (being a ‘modern term’) as opposed to the much wider general link between lynching and racism. Who exactly do you think you are fooling with that?

    I can and will respond to a thinly veiled accusation of racism. And in my response I can and will refer to surprising gaps in the knowledge and appreciation of the person throwing the accusation out.
    I could have also referred to your response on another thread where YOU required me to back up a situation where I implied that you were being racist.

    The US might be ‘foreign’ but you’re on a US blog, constantly providing detailed insights about US history and culture. So that excuse doesn’t work at all.

    Everyone else has pretty much nailed CM down three times over.

    Yeah I would definitely add lots of that stuff to my longer parody post. I would also add lashings of “I’m no longer responding while I respond” too.

    Thumb up 0

  77. Poosh

    Still making stuff up about what other people are saying.

    Still being irrational and refusing to learn from your mistakes. Doubling down in your stupidity.

    You are so dumb it hurts my ovaries.

    And I don’t even have ovaries.

    Thumb up 2

  78. CM

    Still making stuff up about what other people are saying.
    Still being irrational and refusing to learn from your mistakes. Doubling down in your stupidity.

    Still writing self-parody. For the millionth time, back up your accusations. Otherwise they are meaningless and it becomes parody.

    You are so dumb it hurts my ovaries.

    And I don’t even have ovaries.

    I did like that though. Nice.

    Thumb up 0

  79. Poosh

    AH! Of course. Now I see. You’re just butt hurt that I suggested your willful confusion over the original rape comment might be because you’re a racist-in-the-closet. A lot of liberals are racists-in-the-closet, so it’s very possible you are. As I said before I’m gonna assume you’re actually just an idiot, rather than a racist.

    Right, I must use the force to not, yet again, get drawn into CM’s moronic clown show.

    Thumb up 3

  80. CM

    Or, alternatively, I wanted to hear your explanation for how your analogy/metaphor was meant to work. But instead of telling me, you instead decided to say that I’m probably racist.
    Nah, that can’t be it. Seems too simple.

    My butt is perfectly fine. It’s quite hard to take offence from anything you say (sometimes that’s because of the gaps in your knowledge).

    A lot of liberals are racists-in-the-closet, so it’s very possible you are. As I said before I’m gonna assume you’re actually just an idiot, rather than a racist.

    Yes, yes, libs are tards/evil/racists. Yawn. Boring. Got anything that involves thinking?
    Maybe it doesn’t have to involve stereotyping either (but that’s brilliant how you put that on display AGAIN so casually and obviously in this thread – I’m not sure my parody would reach those giddy heights).

    Thumb up 0

  81. CM

    Right, I must use the force to not, yet again, get drawn into CM’s moronic clown show.

    It’s fun being your ring-master.

    What are you talking about CM? Are you saying I falsely claimed you accused myself of being a racist? I don’t see myself doing such an appalling thing.

    OH MY GOD I LEFT OUT THE CONTEXT! ;-)
    It was in relation to the Palestine situation. You made some comment, I (for some reason) suggested it was racist (on another thread, from memory). You defended yourself. I went back and looked at it and admitted that you probably weren’t being racist (I think I conflated your comments with someone else’s – possibly Alex’s). I’d have to do a search to find it.
    Point is – you responded to an accusation of racism. Just as I did.

    If you think a lot of liberals are racists-in-the-closet, I think it’s probably likely that you see racism (and are claiming) where there isn’t any. Much like liberals are getting accused of in the current climate in the US (not sure if you’re aware of that, not being American and all – they have a President who is a little black).

    Thumb up 0

  82. Poosh

    I don’t need to back up anything I say to you CM, because there is no point talking to thick people. If someone else addresses me who isn’t called CM, I’ll be happy to. It’s clear whatever I say will be not be understood by you, or be warped etc etc. What’s the point?

    This entire blog post would not have gone off on a multiple “prove CM is an idiot as usual” game if you could think / thought before you typed. Why encourage you?

    ____________________

    So like what probably happened was I said you called me a racist. You denied it. Then I dropped a link. You realised your lie was uncovered, and had to backtrack?

    I think you’re maybe talking about this blog post here called “Romeny Culture” (I googled very quickly “Right Thinking Poosh CM palestine” and it was near the top). There you call me a racist quite clearly…. no mistakes to be seen. See, I FORGOT you called me a racist completely, thanks for reminding me!

    I’m gonna put the whole post here because it’s HILARIOUS given your rants above:

    CM SAYS: “This reminds me of being hauled into the office in London and asked to explain my “racist email” in which I said ‘Pakis’. NZ were playing Pakistan at cricket somewhere and I’d emailed someone a score. I was extremely puzzled and shocked, as ‘Paki’ has exactly zero racist connotations here in NZ. They could obviously see I was in such a state of shock that when I explained that it had no racism behind it whatsoever they immediately believed me. The innocence of being a colonial…. You, on the other hand, are certainly using it in the context I was accused of using.”

    I hope during that time CM you at NO POINT IN YOUR LIFE thought you could say one single word about racism, given, you know, you were not aware of one of the most racially charged phrases in Britain, which is basically like “n*gger”. I hope. I mean, that’s “stunning ignorance”. Actually, using your logic, that means you can’t talk about racism today! Forget about back then! I don’t think someone who didn’t know “paki” is pretty much one of the worse most racist things you can say, should be talking about racism in any manner EVER. I think you can agree, seeing as this is your logic. (Even worse you thought the phrase “pali” was racist… which it is not, it’s just ‘paki’. That’s not ignorance, that’s just making shit up so you can call someone a racist).

    *fatality*

    Now because you’re thick and woefully under-equipped to talk about any subject, I’m gonna ignore you, hopefully. Because it’s just wasting time talking to a retard like yourself who can’t think or understand even the most basic concepts. I mean, if you were just curious what I meant exactly with my rape comment, then why did you respond with a snarky, pathtic “Wow, yeah, he was like a rapist. That’s awesome.” NLESS you had ulterior motives. That’s you claiming you already know… You didn’t even mention I also called him a bike-destroyer, you picked out the rape comment.

    Not interested in any response you have to say. Because you’re thick, you understand, not because I am in any way “wrong” or “cowardly”. You are not an individual worth responding to.

    Thumb up 5

  83. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  84. Seattle Outcast

    I thought the term was “fucking Packi”, which is the only way I’ve ever heard it said, and even then not for over a decade. It was pretty obvious that knives were to be drawn, and I’ve only heard it from Brits. I work with people from India, and their hatred of Packistanis was even deeper, tending toward nuclear annihilation of those “Muslim sheep fuckers” and the joy of removing all of them from the face of the Earth – and this coming from a corporate executive.

    I would guess that EVERY society has it’s own little private cesspool of deathly insults reserved for specific groups of people. I’ve certainly heard enough of them over the years – I’m not sure what the ones are for the various parts of Africa, but if I cared enough to find out I know several people that could tell me.

    Thumb up 4

  85. Poosh

    Ethnic slurs can be very geographical, even changing from town to town. “paki” is very well known in the UK. Outside it, it just seems like a shortening of the actual word.

    Hilariously “pali” as an ethnic slur is non-existent. Note the liberal constantly tries to inject racist motives in conservatives (which is projection).

    I’ll bet you anything in that Romney post a great deal of time was spent trying to make CM understand that there was no racism involved (of course Stogy or Mrblume saw racism, being cut from the same defective cloth) but CM didn’t want to understand the written word. One should have learnt from that *sigh*

    Thumb up 1

  86. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1

  87. Iconoclast

    Then this is overly pedantic…

    Coming from you, that is amusingly ironic.

    And you were the first to mention context (I mentioned it in response). Way to try and misrepresent the situation though.

    More amusing irony, and it appears that you are confused. Yes, I am the first to mention context, but I was referring to what poosh said and how you took it. The context was contained within this thread and you ignored it so you could misrepresent what poosh said. But when I took your statement, “Gotta love it when a guy who had never even heard of lynching wants to talk about racism”, at face value, you then bitched and bellyached about context, but the “context” you were griping about was in a completely different thread. So yes, you are right, the two examples are not comparable. In the case where you ignored context, the context was right there in front of your face. In the case where I allegedly ignored it, it was in a completely different thread, and in truth, since you dropped that little jab into this thread, you are the one who severed the connection to the “context” and I simply followed your lead by taking the statement at face value without considering any possible “context”, because I assumed that the context was this thread. So, the one whining about context as it applies to your little jab is obviously you, your (willful?) inability to perceive as much notwithstanding.

    Again, why bother, when it’s so transparently wrong?

    The one who is “so transparently wrong” here is you, obviously.

    But that’s interesting how you see my response as the initial jab…

    I never said it was the “initial” jab, so that’s more shit you’re just making up. If anything, the initial jab was your morphing what poosh said into “Mandela was like a rapist”. In that light, why should I concern myself with your whining about his “implication” that you’re a “racist-in-the-closet”?

    You’re yet to demonstrate that.

    You already have, your (willful?) inability to perceive as much notwithstanding.

    I did not invent your admission.

    Yes you did. How could I possibly “admit” to ignoring context when my assumption was that the context was this thread?

    Your statement doesn’t make ANY sense any other way.

    Nice attempt at trying to dictate reality, but it doesn’t make ANY sense to claim that I “admitted” something when I clearly didn’t. Following your lead is not an admission of avoiding context, given that you are the one who severed the context from the other thread and I merely presumed that the context was therefore this thread. You seem to be deluded into thinking that “following your lead” somehow means that I knew beforehand that you had severed the context that was contained in another thread and that I was likewise severing it because you did. Nope. Again, you severed the context and I assumed that the context was this thread, because there is no rational reason for me to have done otherwise.

    That is why I made this observation, with which you agree:

    If we were to assume that anytime anyone said anything, there was some back-history of that thing we needed to be aware of before being “allowed” to comment, well, even you should see how patently absurd that would be.

    There is no way you can suggest that a lack of response is evidence that everyone else ‘seems’ to have gotten it.

    I’m not “suggesting” it. I’m flat-out stating it. You claim that you comprehend the meaning of the word “seems”, but you don’t act like you do. “Seems” means that what follows is subjective. I never even hinted otherwise. Only a fool would suggest that something “seems” to someone other than themselves, and frankly, only a fool would even suggest that such is possible. There is simply no way I can claim how things “seem” to other people, only how they seem to me. And the fact that i need to spell these kinds of things out to you indicates just how much of an obtuse toad you are.

    Thumb up 8

  88. Iconoclast

    Gotta love it when a guy who had never even heard of lynching wants to talk about racism.

    Even when we consider that there is a “back history” to this statement, it is simply unreasonable to expect all readers to be familiar with it, and it is unreasonable to expect readers to research what that back history might be. AS the statement stands, all we know is that someone is being chided about wanting to discuss racism even though that person isn’t familiar with lynching. My point is that it simply doesn’t matter if the original discussion was about the link between the two, because that isn’t specified in any way in the statement. The subject matter is Mandela, and the context is whether he was/is “like a rapist”, and whether there are any racial overtones to such a claim. In this context, “lynching” is irrelevant, and the only reason to dredge it up is to insult someone’s character. Which is fine — these “debates”/”discussions” can get heated, no problem. But don’t get your panties in a wad about the “context” of the lynching statement if you’re only bringing it up to insult someone. That is beyond lame.

    Taking the quoted statement at face-value, it does imply that one must know about lynching in order to “be allowed” to discuss racism. “Context” doesn’t mitigate that, and whining about “context” is merely a distraction from the blunder — if your point is that there is a link between racism and lynching, that point must be made explicitly. It cannot merely be implied, because the link is not universal, as my original response to this statement clearly shows.

    One can talk about racism even if they are unfamiliar with lynching. Even on an American blog. Because racism can be manifested in many ways outside of lynching, and those other manifestations are legitimate grounds for discussion.

    Poosh’s response to CM’s even bringing up lynching was essentially to ask why:

    *Not entirely sure what this lynching thing comes from, I’m fairly sure I know what lynching is?

    So poosh even explained that he had at least heard of lynching, which itself belies the original statement above.

    When the “context” is explored, it turns out to be a discussion of Herman Cain, who is likewise irrelevant to the subject of Mandela’s death. And just because Rich Taylor objects to the use of “lynching” because he personally considers it a racially loaded term, that is likewise irrelevant. Again, the link is not universal. If Rich Taylor thinks it is, he is wrong. If he finds the term unpalatable because he personally thinks it’s a racially loaded term, too bad. My Pace Picante Sauce commercial example clearly shows that it isn’t, at least not universally.

    Essentially, it’s a form of circular reasoning. Since lynching has been involved in racial conflicts, the mere use of lynching means we have a racial conflict, which is clearly false, as the Pace Picante Sauce commercial illustrates. Therefore, statements like the following are fallacious:

    Gotta love it when a guy who had never even heard of lynching wants to talk about racism.

    What has lynching to do with race? WTF?

    You were surprised that lynching could be considered “so exclusively racial”. Which is stunning ignorance of US history (and the context the word carries in the US). There is no getting around that.

    Again, it isn’t “so exclusively racial”, that is the point.

    Anyway, to have you imply that I’m racist when you didn’t even understand how lynching was a racial thing is rather funny.

    Again, one can legitimately discuss racism’s other manifestations without being required to be knowledgeable about all possible manifestations. And again, lynching isn’t universally “a racial thing”, as the Pace Picante Sauce commercial illustrates.

    Thumb up 8

  89. Poosh

    to be “fair” to CM, he’s now claiming he brought up me not knowing what lynching was (which was a false statement, later CM claimed he meant that I didn’t know what it had to do with race, which again is false if you read the link, what I am not aware of is the severity – which maybe explains why he Michael Moore cut and pastes what I actually said) as a response to me suggesting his actual motives for his bizarre “Mandela is like a rapist, brilliant” comment was actually sparked by his own racism. He keeps flipping around.

    Iconoclast did you catch the above where CM himself, it turns out, wasn’t aware that “paki” was a racial slur in the UK, something which is pretty well known in the UK. He’s guilty of “stunning ignorance” as well, amazing.

    Though that Romney post degenerated into idiot CM trying to accuse me of being a racist, yet again because he can’t understand simple statements and concepts, and people telling him he’s an idiot… which keeps happening eh?

    He’s been told plenty of times you can talk about race without knowing specific racial events, but his tiny brain doesn’t understand this rather obvious concept. Love that he himself has shown. Even when his argument is flipped back at him.

    Thumb up 4

  90. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  91. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  92. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  93. Iconoclast

    Unlike you, who gets to decide what I mean, irrespective of what I say.

    The utter hypocrisy is off the charts. This, coming from someone trying to tell me what I mean when I say I’m following your lead, or when I say “seems”.

    Nope, no confusion at this end.

    Knee-jerk denial noted and dismissed.

    You’re the one with your panties very clearly in a bunch over ‘context’ (that’s the whole reason we are still here).

    What happened to that “context” thing you mentioned earlier? Did that just fly out the window conveniently all of a sudden?

    CM, December 9, 2013 3:11 PM

    Clearly, you have your panties in a wad, here.

    How did I misrepresent what Poosh said?

    You’re just repeating an already-answered question. You obviously ignored the answer the first time, why should I believe anything different will happen the second (third, fourth) time?

    I wasn’t griping about context in a different thread.

    The context you were gfriping about was in a different thread, which is presumeably why you had to post a link to that thread.

    I didn’t “ignore context” in any reasonable or normal use of the term. I just didn’t, within the same post, provide the full background to what I was referring to.

    Which tells me that you severed/forfeited the context. Your admission is there in black and white.

    Not at all.

    Knee-jerk denial noted and dismissed.

    Your admission is there in black and white: “I’m not “pretending” anything — I’m following your lead.”

    The only “admission” is the one you’re hallucinating.

    How do you conclude that “Everyone else seemed to have got it”?

    Again, you’re just repeating an already-answered question. You obviously ignored the answer the first time, why should I believe anything different will happen the second (third, fourth) time?

    It IS a racially loaded term, whether you wish to deny it or not.

    So Pace is a racist company then, since they clearly used a racially loaded term in their commercial. Thanks for the clarification.

    The rest of your repetitive nonsense is ignored for the flotsam it is.

    Thumb up 6

  94. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  95. hist_ed

    Gotta say y’all lost me on this one. I keep up on a lot of threads, comment on some, but for every thread there seems to be a point where the comments metastasize into huge lengthy diatribes. I prefer my diatribes a little more compact. Anything over a page and I will skip it. Probably don’t really care much, but maybe, just maybe, if you can’t say it in three paragraphs then taking an axe to it might be an idea.

    Thumb up 9

  96. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  97. AlexInCT

    Probably don’t really care much, but maybe, just maybe, if you can’t say it in three paragraphs then taking an axe to it might be an idea.

    Thumb up 5

  98. CM

    Hist-ed, the problem is the idiot troll that just won’t go away, and the people keeping feeding.

    Says the guy who drops in just to say that, and who ends many of his posts: “Now CM will come and tell us…….”

    Thumb up 2

  99. Iconoclast

    I’m just going with the regular meaning.

    On the contrary…

    In order to mean something different you would have had to reinvent their meaning.

    Which is exactly what you’re doing.

    Back to that old classic avoidance crutch, brilliant.

    “Avoidance?” How can I “avoid” your knee-jerk denials?

    It’s the 17th of December here. That was on the 9th.

    And you’ve had your panties in a wad ever since.

    But this just underlines how pedantic you are.

    Irony overload.

    Your admission is there in black and white: “I’m only following your lead”.
    Couldn’t be any clearer.

    What “couldn’t be any clearer” is that there is no “admission” of any kind there. You severed context, so there was no “context” for me to “ignore”. Given that, how could I possibly be “admitting” to “ignoring context”, when there is no “context” to “ignore”?

    You haven’t answered it once…

    Knee-jerk denial noted and dismissed.

    How do you conclude that “Everyone else seemed to have got it”?

    What makes you think it’s a “conclusion”?

    No idea what you’re talking about.

    No at all surprising. That seems to be a pattern with you, but it doesn’t appear to stop you from commenting anyway.

    You may be deliberately leaving out some rather important context.

    It’s all right here in this thread. Pay attention.

    Thumb up 8

  100. Poosh

    Hang on, if CM at one point in his life didn’t know “paki” was a racist term in the UK then wtf is he doing talking about Mandela period? I mean, Mandela is linked to the issue of racism, so why is CM writing on a blog post that mentions his name? CM logic demands he keep his own mouth shut.

    Thumb up 5

  101. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  102. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  103. Iconoclast

    I reasonably assumed you were referring to a more general ‘seems’.

    And I have already explained to you that I wasn’t, yet you insisted that I had to have been. In other words, you were telling me what I meant.

    “I’m only following your lead” = “I’m only doing it because you did”.

    Translation: THIS is what you really meant…

    Still haven’t answered it.

    Knee-jerk denial noted and dismissed.

    Not that it matters whatsoever.

    Yet you keep flogging the ostensibly dead horse…

    Oh. My. God.

    I see you utterly failed to answer the question.

    Brilliant.

    Indeed.

    If you’re going to feature or mention lynching in the public realm in the US, you need to be careful.

    But the one who brought up lynching in this thread is YOU, for the sole purpose of hurling personal abuse at someone.

    How is that a difficult concept?

    Who says it is?

    Thumb up 7

  104. Iconoclast

    I assumed they’d consider the obvious context before getting all aggressive about it.

    Looks like you have your panties in a wad over “context”.

    Again.

    Thumb up 8

  105. CM

    And I have already explained to you that I wasn’t, yet you insisted that I had to have been. In other words, you were telling me what I meant.

    Ah but you see I’m not telling you that. If that’s what you meant, then that’s what you meant. I’ll take your word for it (I’m nowhere near as arrogant as you). I’m just pointing out the difference between ‘seems’ and ‘seems to me’. They are not necessarily the same. But now I know that you could use them to mean the same thing.

    But the one who brought up lynching in this thread is YOU, for the sole purpose of hurling personal abuse at someone.

    1. Well exactly – it can be brought up without necessarily causing offence.
    2. More accurately I was responding to the hurling of personal abuse. You seem to keep missing that part.

    Who says it is?

    ‘Pace must be a racist company then’ isn’t consistent with the concept, so it seems to me that you are struggling with it.

    Looks like you have your panties in a wad over “context”.

    Again.

    ;-)

    Thumb up 0

  106. Seattle Outcast

    why is CM still beating this thread to death after being told just fuck off and stop trolling?

    Oh, that’s right, he hasn’t had Kos tell him what to think on the other threads yet…

    Thumb up 3

  107. CM

    Don’t read either, sorry. Same as I don’t think Somalia is a Libertarian Paradise (if anyone needs background on that, for god’s sake just ask). So just the usual level of fail then.

    why is CM still beating this thread to death after being told just fuck off and stop trolling?

    Who ‘told’ me? You? Puuuuulease. You’re the guy who trolls me every chance you get.
    As Iconoclast said: It takes two to tango. And ironically my post directly before yours was just light relief.

    Thumb up 0

  108. Iconoclast

    Ah but you see I’m not telling you that. If that’s what you meant, then that’s what you meant. I’ll take your word for it (I’m nowhere near as arrogant as you).

    BTW you’re wrong about ‘seems’ too. It speaks generally.

    CM, December 13, 2013 2:16 PM

    I’m just going with the regular meaning. In order to mean something different you would have had to reinvent their meaning.

    CM, December 16, 2013 2:47 PM

    Thumb up 7

  109. hist_ed

    See, I like a little CM ’round these parts. Key word being little. Different opinions, avoiding an echo chamber, etc. I mean, what the hell would we talk about if we didn’t have CM and Salinger to ague with? I’d just like to see things get a little more concise. I guess I have posted a few lengthy comments in my time, but when every thread turns into alternating 3 page quote/counterpoint splurges, I just don’t keep up.

    Thumb up 4

  110. CM

    Iconoclast you’re cherry-picked my comment about ‘seems’. I provided a dictionary definition (which you then ignored). But you’re trying (with both your quotes) to make it look like I’m so arrogant that I think I can determine what it means. But I clearly didn’t.
    It would great if you wouldn’t do that, thanks.

    Thumb up 0

  111. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast you’re cherry-picked my comment about ‘seems’. I provided a dictionary definition (which you then ignored). But you’re trying (with both your quotes) to make it look like I’m so arrogant that I think I can determine what it means. But I clearly didn’t.
    It would great if you wouldn’t do that, thanks.

    The Free Dictionary

    2. To appear to one’s own opinion or mind:

    2. to appear to one’s own senses, judgment, etc.

    You cherry-picked a definition that conveniently allowed you to paint me in the worst possible light, something you accuse me of doing to you.

    It would great if you wouldn’t do that, thanks.

    Thumb up 4

  112. Iconoclast

    BTW you’re wrong about ‘seems’ too. It speaks generally.

    CM, December 13, 2013 2:16 PM

    I’m just going with the regular meaning. In order to mean something different you would have had to reinvent their meaning.

    CM, December 16, 2013 2:47 PM

    Based on my quoted defintions, your quoted claims above are simply incorrect. But no, no are nowhere near as arrogant as I.

    Thumb up 4

  113. blameme

    To keep up with what this blog has seemingly turned into, I would like a page long breakdown from all of you (lasting at least a few weeks of back and forth) by what is meant by:
    “hope”
    “enjoyable”
    “safe”
    “relaxing”
    “Christmas”
    “best”

    Thanks all. And when I say page long, I mean for each term, just to be consistent with the flavor of RTFTLC these days.

    Thumb up 2