Today on Blogcritics
Home » In defense of offense

In defense of offense

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

People need to be offended. You can’t very well challenge outmoded or mistaken thinking patterns about anything significant without irritating or offending their established sensibilities.

Yet somehow in some people’s minds, merely branding some idea as “offensive” constitutes an overwhelming argument that the idea is wrong and shouldn’t even be expressed or considered further.

Then the argument becomes one of what is or is not “offensive.” Some social conservatives have problems based on some WWJW idea- What would Jesus watch? Some liberals are deeply offended by any expression even hinting that homosexual marriage is anything less than an inviolable constitutional right.

“Offensiveness” seems to be basically a moral judgment. Within it are numerous sub-categories of offensiveness: obscene, homophobic, sexist, and- of course- racist. If you can tag someone or some writing, video or other art work with one of these labels indicating immorality, then it is invalid and discredited.

Some people are Most Always Complaining that anything or anyone they don’t like “is” somehow “racist” or otherwise “offensive.” Doesn’t Involve Valid Argument, but it doesn’t need to.

For my part, when someone objects that some article I’ve written is offensive, or one of the sub-categories of offense, I find it irrelevant. If someone says ‘This is a homophobic article,’ I’ll say, “And your point is?”

The point is, offensiveness is not the question. Truth is. Homophobic (whatever that means) is beside the point. Is the offending statement TRUE? Is it logical, and in keeping with known facts on the ground?

Besides which, “offensive” is a subjective personal emotion. In essence, people are arguing that their subjective internal emotional reaction of distaste constitutes an argument that an idea, artwork or person is wrong. Sounds kind of silly when you look at it like that, doesn’t it?

Offending people just for the fun of seeing them mad tends to mark someone as a jerk in my book, though. It’s not nice to say things just to hurt people’s feelings for no good reason. It’s good to be nice where you can.

But you’re not doing anyone a favor by coddling bad beliefs and dysfunctional behavior systems for fear of offending them.

You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs. Being offended is part of learning.

Plus, as per the slogan of my Culpepper Log, Sacred cows make the tastiest burgers.

Mmm, burgers…

Powered by

About Gadfly

  • Chris Kent

    Al,

    When someone calls me a racist, it’s like someone calling me a cow. I laugh because I know it’s not true. It does not strike a chord within me, nor does it infuriate me.

    I am, quite simply, a somewhat educated, middle class, Caucasian man raised by school teacher parents. Sometimes I will write to make a point, or take a stance which will create conversation. Sometimes I will write a post and just let it go, reading it later and asking myself, “Where in the hell did that come from?” I accept criticism wholeheartedly because I know full well I do not reside upon nor own a mountain. I have faults like the rest of us.

    We write posts as a way to stroke our own vanity. We love receiving compliments and hate beng taken to task or termed anything remotely unpleasant. But what is a good fight and what is a bad fight? And is not certain people fighting a very good fight?

    I once interviewed a local man who played for Vince Lombardi for several years. One of my first questions was, “What was it like to play for Vince?” He answered, without hesitation, “I hated that son of a bitch!” My respect for him decreased immediately. This man, decent for the most part, couldn’t stand the heat and thus retired from pro football after only three seasons. Now such an analogy may reveal my limited intellect, but it’s valid.

    Some writers in here are on a different level than others, though we all aspire to be on that level. Rather than take up the challenge, some of us have decided to write simply to antagonize. Some writers have banded together to throw others out, creating a fabricated world of happiness. Kick Vince off the team, and we lose the very spark of variety so necessary for this room to succeed.

    I don’t know where you were raised or where you live. I know what I have witnessed in my short life, and I have strong feelings about many things. I do know that certain people in here are fighting a good fight, and I respect that, and I think we are all better because of it. The accusations either strike a chord or they do not. How we handle them is revealing.

  • boomcrashbaby

    People need to be offended. You can’t very well challenge outmoded or mistaken thinking patterns about anything significant without irritating or offending their established sensibilities.

    This is true and I think it would do us all well to remember that it goes both ways. Since you talk about racism, homosexual marriage, obscenity and sexism, I will respond from the homosexual marriage point of view, since I do not qualify to speak out on any of the others.

    Some liberals are deeply offended by any expression even hinting that homosexual marriage is anything less than an inviolable constitutional right.

    One important thing to remember, when an individual says that homosexual marriage is a constitutional right, they are attempting to not have to say 4 or more paragraphs of explaination to what basically amounts to the same thing. It became a convenient shortcut to get the same point across. The precept of marriage itself might not be a constitutional right, but the over 1,000 federal benefits of marriage (source – General Accounting Office pdf file)and the 700 state benefits of marriage (actual number varies from state to state) being accorded to some individuals and denied to others DOES constitute a violation of an individuals constitutional right to equal treatment.

    Some blatant examples include the Department of Veteran Affairs allowing ONLY spouses to be co-signers on home loans, but then not all people are allowed to have spouses, or on a civil/community level having organizations like the YMCA or Disneyland offering ‘family membership discounts’ but then denying some families the fairness of fitting into that definition. So when someone says that marriage is a constitutional right, they are referring to the treatment of all individuals and all families on an equal basis.

    The point is, offensiveness is not the question. Truth is. Homophobic (whatever that means) is beside the point. Is the offending statement TRUE? Is it logical, and in keeping with known facts on the ground?

    Homophobic, to clarify, stems from the word phobia, which means fear. And I assume you know where Homo stems from. This word, while it is overused in regards to the marriage debate, comes from the ridiculous catch phrases such as ‘Defense of Marriage’, or ‘defending traditional families’. At no time at all, are heterosexual marriages under attack or threatened, so it is easy to see that there is a distinct and unrational fear being used to justify discrimination and a continual violation of some U.S. citizens rights to equality and justice. Should people wish to have the word ‘homophobic’ dropped from the marriage debate, then they will need to drop words like ‘defending’ from their attempts to exclude extending equality to all Americans.

    Offending people just for the fun of seeing them mad tends to mark someone as a jerk in my book, though. It’s not nice to say things just to hurt people’s feelings for no good reason. It’s good to be nice where you can.

    Because you mention other topics like racism and sexism, I do realize you are speaking on a broader spectrum than that to which I am responding, but in terms of interpreting the intent of offending as being just for fun, I think most people, myself included have been guilty at times of putting intent in online statements where there is not enough data to support that reasoning. Many of my posts on the Iraq situation get the response of me being flippant, and many of my comments on other issues definitely offend people on this board, but it is never just for the fun of seeing people mad, because that accomplishes nothing. When someone offends me, my first assumption is not that they are doing it mischeviously but out of an ignorance of other peoples sensibilities and values, something that all people do at one time or another, myself included. “Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance.”

  • http://blogcritiques.blogspot.com apparent bad guy

    Hey Al, is your web page down?

    -d3

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    “Homophobia” is a misnomer.

    I don’t know a single straight guy (or gal) who “fears” gay men (or women). But there is certainly a level of disgust among many straights (and not just straight men).

    Look at it this way: Some people like to eat sushi. They find it delicious. Others find this disgusting. It’s all subjective.

    Those who find it disgusting are not “uneducated” or “fearful.” They just have a different opinion.

    I know no one who would cower before a gay man. And I know of no one who would physically attack a man simply because he is gay.

    Of course, I live in the ‘burbs. Maybe if I was in a rural backwater, my experiences would be different.

    Anyways, denouncing someone’s position as “racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, etc.” is not an argument. It is name-calling, in an attempt to avoid a logical debate on the issue(s).

  • boomcrashbaby

    Look at it this way: Some people like to eat sushi. They find it delicious. Others find this disgusting. It’s all subjective.

    But how many of them feel the need to defend their pancakes from the threat of sushi.

  • http://fando.blogs.com Natalie Davis

    And why would many of them be so hellbent on making sure that people are punished under law — denied rights and legislated as second-class citizens — for having sushi?

  • boomcrashbaby

    RJ, unfortunately I don’t have time on all my posts to offer two versions, a very clear one and then an even more simplistic one.

    It is possible to be against gay marriage and not be homophobic. As I originally stated, to feel threatened by something that is not a threat is an irrational fear. An irrational fear is a phobia. Note that nowhere in my post did I mention people who find homosexuality disgusting. That is a preference. Totally different. And denouncing someone’s opinion is not an attempt to avoid a logical debate. However, one cannot have a logical debate with someone who continually does not read thoroughly and clearly think about what is actually being said.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    BCB:

    Lots of people oppose homosexual “marriage” because they find the whole idea disgusting. Like eating raw oysters is disgusting to some.

    Some people oppose it because it would involve re-defining marriage for the first time in literally centuries. This opens the door to the slippery-slope of polygamists, beastiality-freaks, etc.

    Anyway, most people oppose it. It has never been a “right” in the US. We live in a democracy.

    You’d be wise to take your civil unions and be happy for your “progress.”

    Irrational fear does not play into the equation for most people.

    I don’t fear you. I just don’t want one of the hallmarks of Western Civilization to be re-defined by a tiny minority who calls those who disagree with them “bigots” and “homophobes.”

  • boomcrashbaby

    Lots of people oppose homosexual “marriage” because they find the whole idea disgusting.

    I know.

    Some people oppose it because it would involve re-defining marriage for the first time in literally centuries. This opens the door to the slippery-slope of polygamists, beastiality-freaks, etc.

    Yes I know, allowing two consenting adults to get married is one step away from unconsenting animals. You sure got me there.

    It has never been a “right” in the US.

    As I stated in my original post.

    You’d be wise to take your civil unions and be happy for your “progress.”

    I’d certainly be wise to take your advice.

    Irrational fear does not play into the equation for most people.

    Never said it did.

    I don’t fear you.

    Good. Because you have nothing to fear.

    I just don’t want one of the hallmarks of Western Civilization to be re-defined by a tiny minority

    so now Western Civilization created marriage? Marriage started out as harems and polygamy to ensure the survival of the species. It transformed into the transfer of property (the wife) between father and husband (arranged marriages). Ancient Rome, extending into the Christian period, documents legally recognized homosexual marriage. Marriage also went from polygamy into polyandry in many nations. Monogamous marriages evolved from demographic and economic reasons rather than moral ones. While you might not want a hallmark of Western Civilization to be re-defined, check your history a bit and find out it has been re-defined many many times according to the changing times of any given society.

    who calls those who disagree with them “bigots” and “homophobes.”

    I don’t call those who disagree with me a bigot and a homophobe. I will call a bigot a bigot though and a homophobe a homophobe.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Polygamy has a more recent and more respectable history than “gay marriage.”

    Hell, I’m all for polygamy. Just run pro-polygamy agit-prop on MTV for a few years, and it will seem like the status-quo to the young and impressionable.

    So, if you can re-define marriage to include same-sex couples, I want the right to marry two chicks.

    Fair enough?

  • boomcrashbaby

    Personally, RJ, if you want to marry two ‘chicks’ and if you can find two women who will willingly marry a man who refers to them as a chick, then I will gladly hold your train up as you walk down the aisle.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Homosexual couples certainly have some legitimate issues to be addressed, as Boom outlines in comment 2. Not urgent, I might say. Homosexuals certainly can’t really claim much oppression in the US. You’re mostly pretty well tolerated now, which is the main thing you should have a right to expect from society.

    However, it seems reasonable that you might also ask for equivalent legal protections, the common contractual relationships that heterosexual couples routinely get.

    Still, it’s not that simple. Most obviously, some people have not so much legal as semantic objection to homosexual “marriage.” You are expecting to suddenly re-define perhaps the oldest institution in human culture.

    Then there might be issues to consider first in the actual practice. What kinds of other institutional shifts will be involved throughout society? What kinds of impact might this have on, say, the insurance industry? What, exactly, are we getting into here?

    All I ask here is that advocates of homosexual marriage show honest goodwill, and not work on the assumption that opponents are wicked oppressors.

    For example, Natalie comes off pretty militant and judgmental in comment 6 at anyone who would even hesitate for a moment to give her absolutely everything she has decided that she has a “right” to.

    I might stand to be corrected by Miss Natalie, but based on comment 6 and past impressions of her, I detect a strong note of- back to the actual topic of the post- offense. She seems to be absolutely morally offended that anyone would presume to register any objection to, in this case, gay marriage- and she’s not shy about saying so.

    I would counter that this indignance 1)Is not justified by the actual facts at hand, and 2)Is not conducive to broader social reconciliation.

    Not necessarily putting this all on Natalie and her few words in this one comment, but homosexual advocates who argue that militantly are not only wrong but arguably counterproductive to their own cause.

    A conservative Christian might understandably see this attitude as disrespectful and hostile. How is snarling and rebuking going to get their understanding or co-operation?

    Finally, I’ll note for the benefit of both homosexual advocates and evangelicals alike that the fact that you feel offended, ie have an agitated emotional state, does NOT constitute proof or logical argument that you are right.

  • boomcrashbaby

    Homosexual couples certainly have some legitimate issues to be addressed, as Boom outlines in comment 2. Not urgent, I might say.

    Urgent? Might I point out that these lawsuits, whether it is the Supreme Court knocking down discriminatory sodomy laws or Mass. et.al. saying that gays are entitled to equal recognition, have been in the court systems for years? Urgent? At what point down the road do I decide to stand up for my daughter and the equal treatment of her family? When she is old enough to move out? I’m not flippant. I’m astounded.

    However, it seems reasonable that you might also ask for equivalent legal protections, the common contractual relationships that heterosexual couples routinely get. Refer to comment #2. We are not seeking marriage so that we can get anything other than equivalent legal protections from our government. Frankly, Al, if it makes society happy, they can call my union a civil union and not a marriage, but it needs to be 100% equal with marriage for full equality, not just 10 benefits that can be achieved anyway with a will.

    Still, it’s not that simple. Most obviously, some people have not so much legal as semantic objection to homosexual “marriage.” You are expecting to suddenly re-define perhaps the oldest institution in human culture.

    Yes, an old institution that has been redefined many times over the centuries. I do know it is entirely semantic/religious objections that we face. What is amazing to me is how many Americans want equality for all based on popular vote. I cannot speak for any other than myself, but I am not seeking society approval. I am not seeking Al and Mary down the street to bless or even condone my relationship. I am seeking equality from my government.

    Then there might be issues to consider first in the actual practice. What kinds of other institutional shifts will be involved throughout society? What kinds of impact might this have on, say, the insurance industry? What, exactly, are we getting into here?

    What will this have on the insurance industry? They offer insurance to an individual and his/her spouse. How does that change? Should I not seek equality because that might give someone else some extra paperwork?

    All I ask here is that advocates of homosexual marriage show honest goodwill, and not work on the assumption that opponents are wicked oppressors.

    Not speaking for anybody but myself, can I point out to you, Al, a person who seems willing to at least consider alternate viewpoints if not agree with them, one simple fact? We have on the one hand an individual who says that my 18 year monogamous relationship, complete with child and white picket fence, is just a slippery slope away from a man screwing a goat. Then on the other hand, should we get offended about said comparison, suddenly we are militant and counterproductive to logic, debate and reasoning.

    A conservative Christian might understandably see this attitude as disrespectful and hostile. How is snarling and rebuking going to get their understanding or co-operation?

    There will be those who will never understand because they choose not to, and technically we cannot force them to understand. It’s not about getting the approval of those who just aren’t going to approve.

    Finally, I’ll note for the benefit of both homosexual advocates and evangelicals alike that the fact that you feel offended, ie have an agitated emotional state, does NOT constitute proof or logical argument that you are right.

    This is 100% true.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Is polygamy a “right” to “equal treatment from the government” like homosexual marriage? If not, why not?

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    but homosexual advocates who argue that militantly are not only wrong but arguably counterproductive to their own cause.

    A conservative Christian might understandably see this attitude as disrespectful and hostile. How is snarling and rebuking going to get their understanding or co-operation?

    Why is it that someone fighting for civil rights has to behave politely, so as not to offend the people who want to retain the status quo and keep those rights from being given? Why should person who feels that our laws don’t provide equal protection to him/her *pretend* not to be angry in the face of people getting on pulpits denouncing them as “depraved,” an “abomination” and whole host of other dispicable things?

    Who gives a shit if the Christian Right is turned off by strong rhetoric? They’re the ones who use it the most.

    I think the frustration shows how sick and tired the gay community is of being ignored by equal protection laws. Why should they hide that frustration?

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Oh, and I have no problem with polygamy being legal, as long as it’s between adults not some guy and some 15-year-old girls, half of whom he’s related to by blood.

    Feminists generally don’t argue in favor of polygamy, but I can’t see why it should be illegal. Prostitution, either, for that matter.

  • boomcrashbaby

    Is polygamy a “right” to “equal treatment from the government” like homosexual marriage? If not, why not?

    It is my perception, Al, that the government should not be in the business of defining, rewarding or punishing families in any way. If someone wants to marry two consenting adult women and those two women want to marry him, that is their own business and not the business of the religious community, the government or myself.

    Those who are weakly trying to mask their religious convictions by saying that a male/female only relationship is the preferred method for raising children and that is why we are not given full equality, do not realize the inconsistency of their statements when applied to society overall. For example, a young female adult in her early 20’s who has a child out of wedlock and the immature man who fathered said child skips town suddenly finds herself in a single parent family situation. She does not fit their description now, yet she is given federal assistance, rather than denial of anything. A man in prison for life can marry a woman, yet cannot be around to help rear any children in the relationship and suddenly HE has more legal status, recognition and protection than two loving, law abiding parents who have been together for years.

    NOWHERE in any argument against gay marriage, is there EVER any discussion that what constitutes a family and that what is best for the children is a family founded on love. NOWHERE. The only criteria is that the household have one penis and one vagina. It is an absurd rule to REQUIRE everybody to live by.

    Should people want to protect the concept of marriage, I would suggest they turn to reality tv where marriage is created by deception, treachery and falsehood and then REWARDED by a million dollar check. I would suggest these people also focus on how easy they have made divorce in this society, I would suggest they focus on statistics that show that of those who can get married, fully 1/2 or more cheat on their marriages. One freakin half of all heterosexual marriages include adultery. NOWHERE is the religious right combatting that disrespect for marriage on the level they are attacking loving families.

    A family is best built on love. If you look at that simple sentence , I believe you cannot disagree with it. Yet it is NEVER a criteria for those who seek to limit my family to second class citizenship. I cannot fathom how those who believe they are doing the compassionate Christian thing, do not care about the over 10 million children being raised by gay parents in this country who hear on a daily basis that their families are depraved, immoral, synonomous with beastality and just overall ‘lesser’. I ask you, Al, What Would Jesus Do?

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    The “family” argument can be effective, but it leans toward an appeal to emotion on both sides of it.

    The strongest argument in favor of “gay marriage” is the legal one. So many legal protections and benefits are given to married couples that aren’t given to anyone else [in fact, all unmarried people ought to complain louder about some of it!].

    Here’s a good example of the legal ramifications of “difference.” Rosie O’Donnell’s case against her magazine publisher: O’Donnell and her partner, who had been living together and raising children together for years, were denied the legal protection of spousal privilege in their communications. If they had been married, their e-mail and other communications would have been considered protected by the laws of spousal privilege, and therefore not admissible in court. But since they weren’t married — even though were UNmarried not by choice but by law — they were denied that protection. So in that court case, their personal correspondence was admissible.

    Now, you can argue that there should be no such thing as spousal privilege in the first place. Fine. But you can see the double wrong in this case: first they were denied the right to be married, and then they were denied the right to spousal privilege because they weren’t married.

    So either we have to get rid of laws that give married people special rights, or we need to give all adults the right to be married to the person or people of their choice [that crap about “we all have the same right to get married to someone of the opposite sex” is just stoopid]. Otherwise, we don’t have equal protection under the law.

  • Debbie

    “But how many of them feel the need to defend their pancakes from the threat of sushi.”

    I would kill to protect my pancakes from sushi – YUCK!!!!

    “Oh, and I have no problem with polygamy being legal, as long as it’s between adults not some guy and some 15-year-old girls, half of whom he’s related to by blood.”

    What about adults that are related by ‘blood’? Brothers and sisters? Mothers and sons, fathers and daughters – if everyone is an adult? Is this alright too? If not, then why? Why do we have laws against it?

    If we get into polygamy, how many spouses are allowed? Is 20 wives too many, 20 husbands, what about paternaty if there are multiple husbands? If there is a divorce, who pays child support?

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    But marriage is so perfect and ideal, there’d be no divorce!

  • Dan

    “if everyone is an adult? ” Debbie, you sound like a pedofobe. Why should 15 year olds be 2nd class citizens? Just because society arbitrarily assigns 18 yrs. as the age of informed consent? There are many 15 year olds who are more informed and mature than some 30 year olds. You realize of course that pedofilia occurs naturally. No one would ever choose this despised lifestyle voluntarily. :)

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    What about adults that are related by ‘blood’? Brothers and sisters? Mothers and sons, fathers and daughters – if everyone is an adult? Is this alright too? If not, then why? Why do we have laws against it?

    The ick factor.

    Also, the belief that too much inbreeding causes genetic problems [see the Hapsburg chin]. But about a year ago or so, scientists said that, genetically speaking, it’d be okay for first cousins to reproduce.

    That’s kind of gross to me. I love my cousins, but you know, not THAT way.

  • Dan

    Maybe it’s the “ick” factor that explains why many people oppose same sex marriage.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    I’m sure it is. But that’s not a sound legal reason to ban it.

  • boomcrashbaby

    Why should a man and a woman be allowed to be married? What does that lead to? Next thing you know people will be wanting to marry their dirty laundry. It’s a slippery slope that just opens the door to all kinds of things.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    True. I mean, look what happened after we let blacks and whites marry each other. How icky is THAT?

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Bringing over your arguments from an irrelevant Rice thread [starting with comment 22], BHW, this is where we get to the problems with being OFFENDED. I suspect that your gut reaction of being offended has blinded you from seeing what’s actually there on Yeagley’s BadEagle.com page.

    The gorilla picture was illustrating a story specifically about Janet Jackson. Further, the specific photo involved a gorilla exposing and presenting one breast, in fairly direct mockery of Janet Jackson personally and her Superbowl act very specifically.

    To deny that this is satirical [the use of wit, sarcasm,and ridicule to attack the vice and follies of humankind] is to purposefully not see what is in front of you.

    You may consider it FAILED or weak satire (you don’t consider it “witty”). You may say that it reflects the guy having broader issues with black folk. He surely does. You may consider Yeagley a jerk. Nonetheless, the idea was at least supposed to be funny and satirical.

    But many Blogcritics have demonized him, and insisted on making him in their minds far worse than he is. He may have some issues about people of color, but there’s no reason based on anything I saw to think that he just hates black people and has some universal contempt.

    For example, I doubt that he would express anything but admiration for Condoleeza Rice. Likewise, I suspect that he would be fine with what he understood to be upstanding professional women of color.

    Whereas, on the other hand, slutty pop stars bring out the worst in him. I bet he’d express similarly low regard for Britney Spears and Madonna. Janet being black just draws out the uglier side of his outlook on top of that. A lot of his objection is to what he takes as sexual immorality rather than race, though.

    If you actually hear him out or someone else with objectionable racial outlook, you might start to understand their issues. You might then even be able to address some of those issues, and try to steer a brother toward the path of righteousness. You might even, Rand forbid, question some of your own comfortably nice views.

    However, once he has been demonized and branded as evil and untouchable, you’re simply not going to understand any of those nuances, or any legitimate concerns he may have. He’s a monster [despite never having actually done anything to anyone], and blind, raging hatred is the only valid response.

    Personally, I would not consider this response to be a TRUE and accurate description of an actual human being. Nor would I consider stoking such an emotion conducive to happiness, wisdom, or reconciliation.

    That’s just me, though, and everyone knows that I am Deeply Offensive, so therefore my thinking is invalid.

  • Dan

    Hmm, I’m not sure how I feel about that. Do you mean the dirty laundry of someone of the same sex, or heterosexual dirty laundry, or one’s own personal laundry? :)

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    BHW, I don’t think this is equivalent to gay marriage: look what happened after we let blacks and whites marry each other. How icky is THAT?

    A man and a woman starting a family is not the same thing as two guys marrying. It does not challenge the basic definition of marriage, and interracial marriage is not a modern invention.

    The distinction between marriage partners of different ethnic backgrounds is completely arbitrary and irrelevant to the function of the institution of marriage. Both partners having a wanger is not.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    I might consider marrying Jodie Foster’s dirty laundry, per comment 25.

  • boomcrashbaby

    A man and a woman starting a family is not the same thing as two guys marrying.

    Not in YOUR household, Al.
    So if the purpose of marriage and all it’s 1,700 benefits are solely for marriage, then celibate heterosexuals, seniors, couples who decide to not have children, impotent men, men in prison with their no-esteem female pen pals, and all sorts of other heterosexuals are tromping all over your definition of marriage and getting away with it. And let’s face it, in this day and age, many many people are having children outside of marriage. So if someone is going to hang that poor excuse over my head, they better at least be consistent and apply it to everybody.

    And for the record, in some states in this country, folks, cousins CAN marry. Personally I don’t think it is the best thing to do but I would never ever think to impose my definition of morality on the general populace. It’s not my place to define their family just as it’s nobody-on-this-board place to determine my families relationship with my government. I need some hard data please, as to exactly how Jesus passed his holy authority onto you folks. Judge not and ask yourselves who are the real sinners here. We all are.

  • boomcrashbaby

    So if the purpose of marriage and all it’s 1,700 benefits are solely for marriage

    I mean are solely for family (procreating).

    I’d also like to point out that my daughter is biologically mine. We have followed your definition of family to a T, we just skipped the whole vagina part.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    I was saying that the “ick” factor is not a sound legal — or reasonable, if you ask me — reason for banning gay marriage. The “ick” factor, as well as the bible, was used to defend laws that prohibited blacks and whites from marrying.

    Someone’s personal distaste for an adult relationship is not a basis for law.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    However, once he has been demonized and branded as evil and untouchable, you’re simply not going to understand any of those nuances, or any legitimate concerns he may have.

    Yes, that must be it. I must be unable to understand his concerns [legitimate or not].

    Al, my opinion of Yeagley is based on what he wrote. I understood him quite well, and I don’t need you to interpret his words for me.

    He may have some issues about people of color, but there’s no reason based on anything I saw to think that he just hates black people and has some universal contempt.

    Oooooookay, Al. Whateeeeever you say.

    It’s not very nuanced to say that “even babies” have a “natural aversion” to dark faces, which is what he said, that they prefer white faces over dark faces. That was just one of his arguments for the inferiority of dark skinned people. Where’s the nuance in that?

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    …and blind, raging hatred is the only valid response.

    Go ahead and find some of that in my words, btw. And then get back to me.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger
  • Dan

    “I still can’t explain it, except to acknowledge it as either simple self-loathing or some sort of odd desire to be white, since he thinks it’s naturally superior to be so.”

    Why not just consider it as one mans opinion based on the evidence he considered. Why does he have to have “odd desires” or be “self-loathing”

    Beauty is a subjective thing, but if I as a white guy were to give evidence and say that dark women are more attractive and exciting than white women, very few would have such hysterical emotional reactions to it. Why the diff?

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Once again, what’s with the “hysterical emotional reaction” bit?

    The difference is that Yeagley is not making his statements as a matter of personal preference. He said that white people *are* more attractive because it’s just naturally that way. And he said that people — you know, all of us — have a natural sexual aversion to dark skinned people.

    He didn’t say that he finds white people attractive as a matter of personal preference or as a personal standard of beauty. He said it is a so-called natural standard of beauty.

    This one man’s opinion reflects his belief in the superiority of one race. If you’re okay with that idea, so be it.

  • Dan

    “If you’re okay with that idea, so be it.”

    I may disagree, but I don’t take offense. It’s his opinion, but he doesn’t have the power to make it true.
    As I said, I doubt that a reverse opinion would be met with such hostility. So I wonder why.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    It’s his opinion, but he doesn’t have the power to make it true.

    No, but he has the power to cast a vote. And it hasn’t been that long since people who shared his opinions on race had enough voting power and voice in our country to put those opinions into action.

    I had never heard of the guy before that other thread. It was a good reminder to me that people like him still exist, probably in greater numbers than I’d like to admit.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Oh yeah, you asked about hostility. I think it stems from the fact that there is a long history of those particular opinions being written into law and being acted upon in our society [and others]. It’s not like it’s just some fantasy in that one guy’s head. It was *real* for a very long time.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    I don’t put any stock in his natural beauty of whitey theories, but I don’t get too bent out of shape because there is no sign of intention of doing anything bad to dark people- and this preference would be against ANY but white folk. It covers blacks, Asians, and Injuns, as he mentions specifically, and pretty much all non-Caucasian races.

    Now, if he were Klan, or some other group lynching or threatening or just trying to intimidate some minority group, I’d get shitty in a hurry. Screw writing bad things about him, I’d be trying to get the FBI up his ass.

    Look at the situation, though. It’s one disgruntled Injun with a bit of a chip on his shoulder writing on a website. He is not, however, advocating discriminatory laws against blacks, much less any kind of active abuse. He just doesn’t seem to dig them much personally. Oh, well. No brown sugar for him.

    Some black folk can be pretty hateful in their talk too, but they get some slack. As much crap as their families have been through, a little bitching is understandable. Injun’s got just as much right to have issues as anyone else, though.

    As long as he’s not advocating violence or legal discrimination, I don’t see much to be overly mad about. I have not seen him make any move or express any desire to in any way oppress anyone.

    Some of exactly the same people who were most crappy about Yeagley would be counseling pateince and understanding for the Palestinians. Palestinians are murdering Israelis (and visiting Americans and other foreigners) by the thousands. I have a LOT harder time just waving that off.

    To ME, the Palestinians are HIGHLY offensive. The North Korean regime also offends me personally.

    A kvetching American Indian with a modem does not, by contrast, work up much sense of offense.

    It’s not like Injuns were oppressing black folks. Whatever problems the black dude has, they sure weren’t caused by native Americans.

    Hell, Injuns were the one group lower on the totem pole than the black man. At least blacks were 3/5 of a person. Indians weren’t even that.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    You are perfectly free to not be offended. We each have our own tolerance levels for that kind of stuff.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    BHW- One thing though, once you make the choice to feel offended, critical listening and thinking tends to get shut down rapidly.

    Consider also that there is a whole range of responses between thinking a statement is cool and going nuclear, as a number of Blogcritics did- absolutely and explicitly wishing him personal pain and suffering and death… over posting a photo of a monkey.

    The best word for my personal response to the gorilla picture and related offenses would be “yuck.” He’s an educated man with some interesting things to say, but the flavor of some of that stuff makes me disinclined to hang around to listen.

    All in all, though, his offenses here rate as no more than a low level of misdemeanor. He’s not even intending to oppress or violate anyone. The absolutely malicious nature of some of the lynch mob reaction here at Blogcritics was FAR more morally offensive than ANYTHING from the Bad Eagle site.

    By the way, re comment 41, do you think that Yeagley should not be allowed to vote? Should there be some kind of test where people with certain inappropriate opinions don’t get to vote?

    As to “people like him,” he seems like a fairly unique character to me. Also, generalizing about “people like him” seems like you’re heading rapidly towards stereotyping. You de-individuate people like that, and that’s where the trouble starts.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    By the way, re comment 41, do you think that Yeagley should not be allowed to vote? Should there be some kind of test where people with certain inappropriate opinions don’t get to vote?

    WTF?

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    BHW, you were justifying the harshness of your reaction based on the fact that he gets to vote. So how do you deal with that?

    If you’re going to accept that “people like him” should be allowed to vote, then it seems like you would need to engage them, and try to talk sense to them as you see it.

    Simply rebuking and shunning Them is not likely to change their attitudes, but to reinforce them in their negative beliefs.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    I don’t admit any “harshness” in my reaction to Yeagley. I think it’s quite reasonable and defendable. I answered Dan’s question about hostility, but I didn’t express any.

    My comment about voting is that, no, he doesn’t have the power to make his opinions true, but he does have the power to cast a vote for someone who has the same beliefs as he does. So it’s not like he’s completely powerless or that his opinions are not put into action in any way. They are every time he writes and gets published, when he speaks in front of a group of people, when he votes, ets. So I *do* find action where you only find ideas. And, as I said, not too long ago there were enough people with those ideas to create and enforce a bunch of laws based on them.

    I don’t need to engage Yeagley or people like him [he’s not that unique; that stuff about the superiority of the white race is kinda old]. I don’t need to reconsider his opinions for the thousandth time. I know what I think about them.

    I don’t have any illusions that I’d change Yeagley’s mind, nor should he have any that he’d change mine. I’ll continue to say what I believe, and I’m sure he’ll do the same. But I won’t be debating any “issues” with him directly. It’s not worth my time.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    Don’t… Yeagely came to my site for a little bit, wanting to “debate”. It was tiresome to say the least.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    BHW- Perhaps I’m harshing on you inappropriately. Despite your moniker, you are generally fairly measured in your discourse. I’m glomming on the sins of the group to you.

    Actually, Ms Tek was one of the harsher individual voices in that mob scene.

    Now, saying that Yeagley is “not worth my time” seems like a measured judgment. That would reflect a measured tolerance. He just don’t do nothing for you, and you don’t wish to associate.

    Fair enough.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    BHW:

    What about adults that are related by ‘blood’? Brothers and sisters? Mothers and sons, fathers and daughters – if everyone is an adult? Is this alright too? If not, then why? Why do we have laws against it?

    “The ick factor.”

    Really? That’s one of the main reasons beastiality and gay sex have been taboo for so long. But if we merely “educate” our children into realizing that sexual relations between sisters and brothers (perhaps in a group setting!) is completely normal, then the vile discriminatory “ick factor” will go away, in time…

    “Also, the belief that too much inbreeding causes genetic problems [see the Hapsburg chin].”

    Do we presently ban couples from marrying, even if both parties carry the same recessive gene? Nope…

    “But about a year ago or so, scientists said that, genetically speaking, it’d be okay for first cousins to reproduce.

    Que bueno for the scientists…

    “That’s kind of gross to me. I love my cousins, but you know, not THAT way.”

    Yabut, you see, you’re just a mindless bigot who has no yet opened your eyes to all the possibilities of a truly liberated humanity! Imagine a world in which parents do not merely talk about the “birds-and-the-bees” with their offspring, but they actually act it out in front of their kids! What great lessons can be learned! Tolerance and close family-ties would both receive a great boon from such a society.

    I, and all other non-bigoted people, demand that incest be decriminalized, so that future generations of horny teens will not be oppressed and discouraged from fucking their siblings.

    Fight The Power!

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Has anybody else noticed that black men are vastly more likely to partner with white women, than white men are to partner with black women?

    Is this an MTV-driven phenomenon? Or is there something inherently attractive about black dudes and white women, and something lacking with white men and black women? And if so, why don’t lonely white men go for black chicks, and vice-versa?

  • boomcrashbaby

    White women have less issues to deal with than white men.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    You know… I’ve made a vow to myself NOT to respond to Barger or R.J. Elliot…

    Unfortunately, this is going to be one of the few times I break that:

    Has anybody else noticed that black men are vastly more likely to partner with white women, than white men are to partner with black women?

    Is this an MTV-driven phenomenon? Or is there something inherently attractive about black dudes and white women, and something lacking with white men and black women? And if so, why don’t lonely white men go for black chicks, and vice-versa?

    EXCUSE ME?? Once again…

    EXCUSE ME??

    My father is white. My mother is black.

    Of all the “mulatto/mixed” chicks who I went to grade school and high school with, only Three have I known to be vice versa. (And I went to school with quite a few)

    Of the “mulatto/mixed” people I know on the net, seems to be an even mixture.

    RJ, I have no idea what you have “observed”, and I have no idea where you live, but I would suggest getting out into the big city, stop watching MTV, and STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS.

    As far as Yeagely goes:

    Damn right! He deserves to have his testicles kicked right back up into his body cavity as does any racist or anyone who associates with racists (except those who associate with racists need a good kick in the head as well… because they are just as guilty by condoning such people. It is no different than if you knew your friend was beating his wife. If you still remain friends, or support someone who is beating their spouse, you are just as much of a maggot as they are.)

    I abhor Nazis and racism in any form. I abhor the people who participate in it and collaborate it.

    Fuck them. They should die (as much as the Palestinians that you so despise Barger).

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Yeah, see Ms Tek, this is just the kind of hateful rant I’m talking about. Yeagley is not beating anyone, or murdering anyone- like the Palestinians. He’s really not even so much as using racial epitaphs.

    I consider your malicious voodoo wishes for harm and death a far worse trespass than Yeagley’s sexual distaste for dark women. I definitely consider your hateful sentiments a much worse transgression than whatever sin I may be committing by not being righteously indignant against the Injun.

    I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    **rolls eyes**

    Whatever Barger… You might want to check your halo, seems to be a little crooked.

    people, just so you know… it is WRONG to hate racists. ;)

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Noting that it is early on Easter morning. We expect Jesus to be getting up in a few hours, so I’ll just say that I don’t consider hate a virtue.

    I am probably guilty of it on occasion myself, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I certainly would not present it as something to be PROUD of, however.

    Also, I mostly commit sins of hate against, like, mass murdering dictators and such- people who are actively causing destruction and suffering.

    I would never, on the other hand, wish that someone have their genitals stuck in a meat grinder- not even Saddam Hussein. That’s purely sadistic. He needs to be put down in the name of public hygiene like a rabid dog, but I certainly get no joy in contemplating some extended physical suffering.

    Nor would I be wishing death on ANYONE who is non-violent, such as Mr Yeagley.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    Ah, well I am not a hippie and I accept all feelings as being what they are, neither good nor bad. Its only how you act on such feelings that is the “sin”. There is nothing wrong with hating someone so long as you don’t hurt them. If you wish them to be hurt, that isn’t a nice thing however, when it comes to racists, rapists, murders, and their ilk, I don’t give a shit. 1001 tortures for them. That being said, Yeagley should have his genitals in a meat grinder, among a few other people I have in mind.

    BTW. words can cause as much destruction as deeds.

    I thought not too long ago you said that the Palestinian children deserved suffering because their parents brought it on themselves.

    Either way, you are speaking out of both sides of you mouth.

    I accept hate as much as I accept love. Both are very good at balancing things out in the end. People need to get over thie bullshit the hipple crap.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    No, I’ve never said that Palestinian children deserve suffering, and I find it difficult to believe that you could have ever honestly thought I said such a thing.

    I also find it difficult to believe you honestly think that Yeagley should be classified in a group with rapists and murderers.

    You act as if you are positively PROUD of indulging blind, indiscriminating hatred and ill-will.

    And calling ME of all people out as indulging “hippie” crap, well I’m not sure how to respond to THAT.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Ah, well I am not a hippie and I accept all feelings as being what they are, neither good nor bad. Its only how you act on such feelings that is the “sin”. There is nothing wrong with hating someone so long as you don’t hurt them.

    Careful, Tek. This is exactly Al’s argument about Yeagley.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    I should add that I’m not at all in favor of any kind of “thought police,” but I do believe that thoughts/beliefs aren’t just benign ephemera: most people act on them in some way.

    Most of the time, it’s in a legal way [like voting, evangelizing, etc.]. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a signficant impact. So the idea is to keep saying what *you* believe is true so that the voice of the ignorant minority doesn’t get too loud.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    Not really bhw.

    I was thinking about that before I went to bed and I think I should blog it. I just woke up an I need to cycle 15 miles before I can be coherent enough to do a thought out blog on my position on “hate”.

    I don’t think that is going to be a post that is appropriate for blogcritics so it will just go up on my site. You are welcomed to read my full response there.

    I will try to say it very simplistically and quickly now.

    All feelings and emotions are natural. They are there for a reason. They are what helps one survive. Feelings are not “wrong”, they just are there. Feelings can come from illogical or logical reasons. I hate anything with over eight legs. I’m actually fearful of centipedes. I know they can’t hurt me, are not interested in me, more than likely do not perceive my existence. Still, if given the opportunity, I will squish, squish, squish, or run. This is an illogical reaction- this creature cannot harm me or the world I live in. On the other hand there are vile people like racists who by their words and and goal, want harm to come to me,my own, my lifestyle, etc. I hate them and wish them ill because they are anathema to balance. Now, ACTING upon that hate is wrong. Murder is illegal in most cases, so is torture and property damage. On top of it those things aren’t worth the trouble. This doesn’t mean its bad to hope that harm comes to them- they are anathema. They disturb harmony and balance. To wish them out of the equation is logical and natural as that they are a force who desire negative affect on groups that have nothing to do with them. It is logical to want to defend that which is dear to you.

    They too have every right to think they way they do, speak the way they do- it doesn’t make it correct or logical. Preaching is just as damaging as doing.

    Barger,

    You enjoy putting emotions and words, and feelings into my mouth… I think I am animated enough without your help, thank you very much. But in order to clarify I will tell you exactly what I think and feel in plain English-

    I am not proud of hate or ill will. I do not care. I am proud of my actions and my deeds such as fixing things or helping people out. How one feels and what one thinks is no cause for celebration or even concern actually. It is the ACTION that speaks.

    As far as blind- I think not. Seems to be I have sorted what quite a few people are about very quickly. I have gift of character judgment. It doesn’t take me long to figure what people are about and what they want and what motivates them. Thinks I don’t know, I take the time to read up on and study both sides. I don’t make a call until I feel I have observed enough and read enough- from both sides. It’s called “being fair”.

    Indiscriminating hatred – I’ll remind you of this post. You might want to go over the comments again because I directly challenged you about Palestinian children and you were pretty clear that you thought they deserved suffering.

    You want to play the moral high ground because I hate a racist and wish him ill will. Kind of funny coming from a guy who thinks the innocent children of a race of people deserve pain and suffering because of what some militants do. Talk about indiscriminating hatred. At least I have the since not to hate a race of people or a religion and give individuals a chance. I don’t make mass judgments based on ones color/nationality/ or religion.

    Pot. Kettle. Black… and all that jazz (actually not really… because one again, I’m not wishing bad things on children or innocents)

    So spare the the song and dance.

    Finally, the Nazis were racists. They didn’t like Jews and thought that they “DESERVE their oppression and misery.” because a few of them pissed off some Germans. The Nazis also were mass murderers and did not care that the Jews were suffering and dying in their ghettos. They were Jewish. They brought it on themselves.

    Sound familiar?

    Yeah, racists belong in the same category as murders and rapists. No question about that.

  • Roger

    The term “homophob” sholud never have even become a ligitimate term. Obviously phobia is fear of something. If I don’t beleive in the practice of homosexuality am I afraid of a gay? Hell no.

    Don’t forget that even though Bill Clinton’s “don’t as don’t tell” policy has allowed more homo’s to join the military, if it was up to the US military then the old policy would still stand strong. Are they homophob? No, maybe they no something a lot of us don’t.

  • boomcrashbaby

    if it was up to the US military then the old policy would still stand strong. Are they homophobic? No, maybe they know something a lot of us don’t.

    Their reasoning is that it would harm unit cohesion, because they acknowledge that a lot of soldiers are afraid of being cruised on the battlefield or in the barracks. It has to do with allowing ignorance and fear to continue because it’s easier than attempting to eradicate it.

  • Roger

    Fear? I’ve been in the Military have you? In the past when entering in to basic training you got a better understanding of the policy. Now I suppose it’s a little different. Ignorant? I think not…

    The past being 1988.

  • boomcrashbaby

    Fear? I’ve been in the Military have you?

    No, Roger, you forget. I am not allowed to be in the military, unless I use deception and pretend to be something I’m not.

    Ignorant? I think not…

    I think so. Imagine that you and a gay soldier are in a fox hole with missiles and gunfire whizzing about overhead. Thinking that the gay soldier is drooling over your body rather than being concerned with his current situation is pretty ignorant if you ask me.

  • Roger

    You’re plain stupid. You are really shallow if you think I’m going to be worried about a gay dude drooling over me with missles and gun-fire whizzing by. If that is your perception then say no more. Damn I’ve heard it all, lol!

    Further I don’t personally have anything against gays or anything against having them in the military. I’m just pointing out obvious issues that exist.

    That was really funny. (“Man I’m getting away from you and going into gunfire”. “You’re checking out my ass”).

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Ms Tek, you keep saying again and again that I have wished suffering on children claiming that they deserve it. The fact that you repeat that lie again and again does not make it true.

    Here is the direct relevant quote from the post you invoked in your last comment to justify this lie: “It’s unfortunate that the children suffer, but it is their own people who are bringing that on them, not the Israelis.” That’s totally and obviously different than what you’re claiming.

    Certainly the majority of adult Palestinians are complicit in their own bad plight. THEY bring this on their own children. The Israelis try to avoid hurting innocents, but they have to deal with people who are coming to murder THEIR children.

    The responsibility for the suffering of Palestinian children, then, rests directly with their own parents and community, not the Israelis. That is based on the actions of the ADULTS not the children.

    Unfortunately, being raised up in the swirling wickedness of modern Palestinian culture, the children get ruined pretty quickly. Some of them are not even teenagers yet before they’re getting drawn into the intifada nonsense.

    By the time they’re throwing rocks at Israelis and learning to chant ‘Death to Jews’ or such, they’re beginning to assume the moral liability themselves.

    Beyond the willful untruth that you insist on repeating about me, there is what I’m calling “blind, indiscriminating hatred” from you. You are equating Yeagley, who has never done violence to anyone as best I know, nor advocated such, to Nazis gassing Jews. Classifying Yeagley in with genocidal Germans shows a willful moral blindness, and lack of any proper discrimination.

    You display again the willful lack of discrimination by comparing the Israelis’ position to the Nazis, because they both said the other guy deserved it. That involves what I can only see as willful and wicked dishonesty for someone to claim not to see the glaringly obvious difference.

    See, the Jews in Germany were peaceable citizens going about their business, running shops, going to jobs, raising children. They were not in fact waging war against other Germans.

    Palestinians, on the other hand, are murdering Israelis every chance they get. They do this with, by all indications, wide majority support amongst the whole Palestinian population. When the Israelis DO respond, it is to specific acts of provocation, ie MASS MURDER, by the Palestinians.

    That’s just a LITTLE BIT different than the Nazis and German Jews, isn’t it?

    I would gently suggest that someone who can’t make the obvious moral distinction between Nazis and Israelis shouldn’t be putting too much stock in their self-proclaimed skills at character judging.

  • boomcrashbaby

    You are really shallow if you think I’m going to be worried about a gay dude drooling over me with missles and gun-fire whizzing by. If that is your perception then say no more. Damn I’ve heard it all, lol!

    That’s not what I think, that’s what the Pentagon thinks. source 1

    source 2

    source 3

    Apparently, soldiers like you are proving the military wrong though, (see source 3) so you should write your former commanders a letter and tell them how shallow and stupid they are.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    Actually Barger, there is no difference. The Palestinians which you dislike so much didn’t just suddenly decide to get nasty. They have a reason. I may not agree with their methods but they ARE fighting back. There is a reason.

    And the Nazis and some of the things that the State Of Isreal have done are too similar for comfort.

    But this is one dance I will not entertain with you. If you feel you must call me “blinded”, so be it, I consider the source. Then you and I are both “blinded” and attempting to tango. I know what I see. You see what you see. Only when the endtimes come will we know who was right and who was wrong.

    I’m not worried. I’ve all the patience in the world.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Tekky said:

    “My father is white. My mother is black.

    Of all the “mulatto/mixed” chicks who I went to grade school and high school with, only Three have I known to be vice versa. (And I went to school with quite a few)

    Of the “mulatto/mixed” people I know on the net, seems to be an even mixture.

    RJ, I have no idea what you have “observed”, and I have no idea where you live, but I would suggest getting out into the big city, stop watching MTV, and STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS.”

    The hard data back up my statement. It is quite more likely for black men to marry (or have children with) white women than white men and black women to “couple.” I could look up the cite, though I make no guarantees as to finding it again.

    But I promise, this was no mere assumption I garnered from watching MTV. I never watch MTV. ;-]

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    “the Nazis and some of the things that the State Of Isreal have done are too similar for comfort.”

    First off, common mistake, it’s “Israel,” not “Isreal.”

    Secondly, comparing a nation of holocaust survivors and their decendents to the Nazis is both ill-informed and disgusting.

    BTW, it’s the Arabs who are the ones eating up the Nazi propaganda. Mein Kampf sells quite well in the Middle East…