What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?

[Michael Tee]

<<Your exact quote was faggot raghead. >>

More bullshit from you.  You take one word out of context, I call you on it, so you snip TWO words out of context.  If I call you on it again, you'll snip THREE words out of context. 

Cut the bullshit and shit or get off the pot.  Post the whole message, not one single word, or two words of it.

[Michael Tee]

<<I suppose that Leftists are so confident in their virtues that they feel excused in the use of flagwords , since it is safe for everyone to assume that they do not mean them in any truely contemptuous way , except when useing them to dehumanise those who actually do deserve it.>>

Assume, my ass.  I expect every reader to take the words in the context of the message in which they are used, and in the case of the post I was called on, to have enough good sense to understand that in context there is no derogatory meaning at all directed at the Arabs.  The post was meant to parody the racism and ignorance of the U.S. military and their civilian bosses.  I did not expect anyone to ASSUME that, I expect them to possess minimum abilities to read for context and to interpret what was right in front of them.

[BT]

More bullshit from you.  You take one word out of context, I call you on it, so you snip TWO words out of context.  If I call you on it again, you'll snip THREE words out of context.

I posted the link to it. You do know how to click on a link don't you?

[Plane]

<<I suppose that Leftists are so confident in their virtues that they feel excused in the use of flagwords , since it is safe for everyone to assume that they do not mean them in any truely contemptuous way , except when useing them to dehumanise those who actually do deserve it.>>

Assume, my ass.  I expect every reader to take the words in the context of the message in which they are used, and in the case of the post I was called on, to have enough good sense to understand that in context there is no derogatory meaning at all directed at the Arabs.  The post was meant to parody the racism and ignorance of the U.S. military and their civilian bosses.  I did not expect anyone to ASSUME that, I expect them to possess minimum abilities to read for context and to interpret what was right in front of them.

I caught that you were mocking Rednecks and Hillbillys , and assumeing that your use of flag words aimed at people that you like better is intended to be mocking of the redneck attitude as you assume it to be. Such that your demeaning language is directed specificly at people you do wish to dehumanise and the supposed  propensity of these people to dehumanise people with demeaning language.


I am a mere Cracker myself , but I am not Irony deficient .

[Michael Tee]

Here's what I found when I clicked on the link you provided; no wonder you were so reluctant to reveal the context:

<<Maybe we should have a more muscular UN, a NUCULER-ARMED UN, you know, defy our Resolution once, shame on you, defy it twice, MUSHROOM CLOUD TIME, RAGHEAD FAGGOTS, you were only polluting this fucking planet anyway and now you're history.  Maybe THAT'S what the founders of the UN really had in mind, but their cowardly successors were too politically correct to execute until one day a man named John with a walrus mustache strode into their sissified halls and set them straight.  Taught 'em the AMERICAN way of problem-solving.>>

Yeah, no irony there.  Looks like pure racism to me. 

[BT]

The link has been there since i mentioned this was not the first time you used the term. I don't see it ironic that you used the term, the context stood on it's own without it. You inserted it for another reason, but it certainly wasn't meant as an ironic poke in the face on RW members in here because we haven't used that term in our posts and we were the audience of your diatribe.

I think you need to go to plan B for your defense, because i'm not buying plan A.

[Michael Tee]

<<I caught that you were mocking Rednecks and Hillbillys , and assumeing that your use of flag words aimed at people that you like better is intended to be mocking of their attitude as you assume it to be. Such that your demeaning language is directed specificly at people you do wish to dehumanise and the supposed  propensity of these people to dehumanise people with demeaning language.>>

I'm fucking up.  The irony is AIMED at racists, fascists and militarists.  Their victims are the people of the Third World (obviously) but also the dumbest, poorest and most desperate of the American working class and underclass (the "low-hanging fruit") who are not just victims but also co-participants in the crimes.  Many of them are also racists, fascists and militarists, but since they are only cannon fodder, their views are not all that important.  "Hillbillies" is my own personal shorthand for "low-hanging fruit."

The position of the hillbillies is complicated since they are both victims AND perps.  As victims, they are probably deserving of some sympathy, but as perps they are deserving of none.  I am starting to wonder if my "4,000 dead hillbillies" rhetoric, while appropriate to them in their capacity of perps, is maybe somewhat insensitive to their status as victims.

I guess plane feels that I am dehumanizing the "hillbillies" but my original intention was to attack the ones who prey on and victimize them, while not losing sight of the guilt and complicity of the hillbillies themselves.  I think there must be plenty of ethical and honourable (for want of a better word) hillbillies who would never lend a hand to the slaughter of the Third World and who plane may feel I have slandered by lumping them together with the dead of the Iraq war.  Maybe "low hanging fruit" or LHF, would have been a better catch-all designation than "hillbillies."  It has the advantage of applying only to those ensnared by the military's nets and none of the disadvantages of encompassing people both within and without the military.

[Michael Tee]

<<The link has been there since i mentioned this was not the first time you used the term. >>

So what?  You should have posted the whole thing rather than one word.  You implied it was racist by quoting first one word, then two, when the text itself showed otherwise.  That was extremely dishonest. 

<<I don't see it ironic that you used the term, the context stood on it's own without it. >>

The whole text was one long piece of ridicule.  Of course it would "stand on its own" without any one element.  It was irony piled on irony piled on irony.  One or two jabs could have been removed and the piece still would have gotten the message acress.  So what?

<<You inserted it for another reason, but it certainly wasn't meant as an ironic poke in the face on RW members in here because we haven't used that term in our posts and we were the audience of your diatribe.>>

Of course it wasn't a poke in the face of RW members, it was a poke in the face of George W. Bush, since I deliberately used the word "nuculer" which is almost his trademark.  Since when is irony in this group limited so that it can only be used on other members of the group?  You've hit a new level in asininity with that one, also in missing the obvious targets, Bush ("nuculer") and Bolton ("a man named John with a walrus mustache") who strode into the UN.  The whole thing was an obvious take-off on the RW narrative as put out by the "President" and Bolton and others.

<<I think you need to go to plan B for your defense, because i'm not buying plan A.>>

LOL.  There is no plan B, BT.  There isn't even a plan A.  I just told you what I meant when I wrote the two posts and now there's nothing more I can say about it that hasn't already been said.  You either believe me or you don't.  I gave it my best effort, and I really tried to be as lucid as I could, but I don't propose to spend the rest of the night on this. 

[BT]

So what?  You should have posted the whole thing rather than one word.  You implied it was racist by quoting first one word, then two, when the text itself showed otherwise.  That was extremely dishonest.

Nonsense. The link was there for all to see.

Of course it wasn't a poke in the face of RW members, it was a poke in the face of George W. Bush, since I deliberately used the word "nuculer" which is almost his trademark.  Since when is irony in this group limited so that it can only be used on other members of the group?  You've hit a new level in asininity with that one, also in missing the obvious targets, Bush ("nuculer") and Bolton ("a man named John with a walrus mustache") who strode into the UN.  The whole thing was an obvious take-off on the RW narrative as put out by the "President" and Bolton and others.

Seems to me if you are slinging arrows you should have a target. Bush and Bolton don't read this forum. And please recall your original defense was that you were using the term to mock RW militaristic fascists. I assume you thought this forum contains folks like that.

[Michael Tee]

<<Seems to me if you are slinging arrows you should have a target. Bush and Bolton don't read this forum. >>

And are therefore never mocked in it?  I don't think public figures are immune from satire or ironic comment just because they haven't yet been accepted as members of this club.

<<And please recall your original defense was that you were using the term to mock RW militaristic fascists.>>   

You're a little confused.  My original defence referred to my recent post, the mocking of Bush and Bolton was referenced to the old post that you dug up.

<<I assume you thought this forum contains folks like that.>>

I think you assumed (wrongly as usual) that I only mock folks who participate in the forum. 

This forum HAS contained militaristic right-wing fascists, Rich was a good example of that, and some members, yourself included, seem very sympathetic to that POV. 

[BT]

and some members, yourself included, seem very sympathetic to that POV. 

And yet, i haven't used that term to describe Arabs. Come to think of it, i don't recall Bush or Bolton using those terms either. Just you.

[hnumpah]

...if anyone takes genuine offence at my use of the term "raghead" in this thread(as opposed to the fake indignation of both hnumpah and BT at something they know God-damn well is not racist)

It is racist, and I do take offense. I lived and worked among Arabs for quite some time, and made some very good friends among their people, some of whom I still keep in touch with. I took offense after 9-11 when it was popular to refer to them as ragheads, towelheads, camel jockeys and sand niggers, and I take offense with such terms now. My indignation is nowhere near 'fake', and I feel you are a complete ass for assuming such. Just so you know.

[Michael Tee]

<<And yet, i haven't used that term to describe Arabs. Come to think of it, i don't recall Bush or Bolton using those terms either. Just you.>>

Of course they don't overtly use those terms.  Not when the mic's on.  Not for public consumption and probably not for private consumption either because you just never know . . .   But it's how they feel towards them.  How else could they feel towards a people whose country they blatantly invade, without a shred of justification, to seize a valuable natural resource that they happen to own, killing hundreds of thousands of them in the process?  They even labeled their own war a "crusade" but they had to take that one back real fast.

However, I do have a real simple question for you:  when I refer to the Japanese as Japs, you know what I have against them; and when I refer to 4,000 dead hillbillies, agree or disagree, you know what I have against them too; I didn't exactly go out of my way to hide it in either case.  Now according to you, I have just deliberately insulted hundreds of millions of Arabs by calling them "ragheads" - - why?  What did they do (in my eyes) that would justify such an insult?

[BT]

Now according to you, I have just deliberately insulted hundreds of millions of Arabs by calling them "ragheads" - - why?  What did they do (in my eyes) that would justify such an insult?

Dunno. You have family close to the WTC on 9-11?

[Michael Tee]

<<It is racist, and I do take offense. I lived and worked among Arabs for quite some time, and made some very good friends among their people, some of whom I still keep in touch with. I took offense after 9-11 when it was popular to refer to them as ragheads, towelheads, camel jockeys and sand niggers. . . >>

That's hilarious.  If you were in the U.S. military at the time, your indignation must have been set off several times a second, like cameras flashing at a rock star's public appearance.

<<. . .  and I take offense with such terms now. My indignation is nowhere near 'fake', and I feel you are a complete ass for assuming such. Just so you know.>>

Your indignation isn't fake, eh?  OK, fine, then you're entitled to an apology - - after you answer the same question I just put to BT:

<<However, I do have a real simple question for you:  when I refer to the Japanese as Japs, you know what I have against them; and when I refer to 4,000 dead hillbillies, agree or disagree, you know what I have against them too; I didn't exactly go out of my way to hide it in either case.  Now according to you, I have just deliberately insulted hundreds of millions of Arabs by calling them "ragheads" - - why?  What did they do (in my eyes) that would justify such an insult?>>