So Evil I Was Momentarily Struck Blind

So I was writing a post to dismantle Hillary and Obama's health insurance schemememabobs.

And then I go over to read La Chola and find out that I had made one rather huge and ungainly mistake in my reading of the two bastard's health plans:

You see, everytime either candidate's policy talked about penalties for people who don't opt into the scheme I assumed they were talking about imposing penalties on insurance companies for not opting in to what I assumed was a sort of federal insurance scheme which would do all the stuff that the medical insurers are each currently paying a small army of skilled papyrus engineers to finagle, and by centralising the system it would cut the costs of isurance back down to the level before Middle Class people started having their monocles knocked off by the ridiculous admin creep afflicting the current system.

It'd still leave businesses in the position of having to outsource all those middle class positions that are making outsourcing a bad thing (now that it's affected the lives of people outside the working class manufacturing industries of course, nevermind the issue of the people who the outsourcing companies treat like honest to god slaves*) because the places those jobs are getting outsourced too tend to either have socialised medicine, and so avoid the issue of the companies having to spend money paying for their worker's healthcare, or the regulations are so lax and "business friendly" that it's a moot point anyway, and what the fuck is medicine anyway?

Centralising the admin side of medical insurance doesn't do much for getting the uninsured covered in any real way, though undoubtably some of the lower middle class will find themselves more easily covered, but it would completly changes the cost effect of outsourcing all monocle displacing middle class jobs, and so likely stem that to a certain amount.

The slight problem that socialised medicine would do the same thing (in fact, most places that could be outsourced to will probably require the business to pay somehting akin to insurance, if not bribes for local official to be exempt from such things, making it cheaper to operate locally on all levels) AND AT THE SAME TIME ensure that every american who can actually reach a doctor is covered for it, all of which kinda makes the centralised insurance thing seem silly because it's a net win only for some businesses, and even then only in some situations.

Which is why, in my theoretical presidential run, I would have fought like a claymore wielding scotsman for socialised medicine, but kept the centralised insurance thing as my final, ultimate fall back point.

Because when haggling (and I say this as someone who's a terrible haggler btw, econcomics requires understanding that money has a purely subjective value and the metaphysics involved makes such htings problematic), the person selling something should always throw out the highest price they think it's possible to get as though the person they're haggling with is a complete idiot - generally by doubling or tripling the usual break even price of whatever is being offered.

This is then followed by the person buying the thing halving the initial price, and leads to the final price that gets agreed on being somewhere between the two points.

Which is a partial win, and in the case of political policies gives you grounds on which you can build future successes on.

This was how the civil rights movement operated btw, the partial freedoms won by civil rights groups came about as a side effect of them shouting "We want freedom, we want ice cream, and we want it now!" and the regressive countered with "you can have some fake freedom and you no icecream!" which eventually ended up with partial, but actual, freedom, and a flavor of ice cream of the regressive's choosing (chocolate chip).

This worked because is does the thing that any winning strategy should do; it puts you in a win-win situation, becuase even if you don't win precisely what you're asking for, it will at the least make things a bit better, while also putting you in the position of being A) able to rally the troops around a single, consistent goal and B) having the huge syphistian rock stop falling just a little bit nearer the top than it would have otherwise, makiing the climb back up short each time it does slip out of your hands.

Plus you get icecream.

This principle has been corrupted into the modern "pragmatic" approach of many liberals and the laissez faire repugs (those who began defecting a while ago, like Avarosis and the rest fo the log cabin sort), where you aim you sights at a small and achievable thing, and just hope your opponents don't fight too hard.

Which is stupid, because the regressives always aim for the most difficult target they can get (becuase guess who the civil rights groups learnt their strategy from? And was not Strom Thurmond's campaign speech "no ice-cream for the darkies"?**) which means that if you don't pull as hard you can in the opposite direction, you're gonna lose ground and you're gonna lose ground hard.

And not even get any ice cream to show for what little fighting you actually did bother to do.

But I digress slightly.

Because of this weird multi-layered idea of what needs to be done, what can be done and finally what it's reasonable to expect Democrats to try and do, I ended up suffering from severe pessimism failure - and after calling Obama supporters ridiculously cupid as well! Oh the irony...

You see, because those penalties are not aimed at the insurance companies, as one might expect, but at people who are uninsured!

Because you see, in fear of Rush throwing the word "socialised medicine" around (Come on dems! Sticks and stones won't... oh ffs, don't capitaluting to things until they happen dammit!), Hillary and Obama have adopted the motherfucking, what the fuck is wrong with the world, Strawman version of socialised medicine

Yes folks, because this plan achieves both things that have been thrown at the very idea of an actual national healthcare system, you know, the kind with the huge NATIONAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM NOT TO BE TREATED LIKE A PROFITABLE BUSINESS out front to stop the silliness of the Freemarketeers and their belief that the great depression never happened breaking the system in their usual way, and then go on to add the kicker of it not actually being a form of universal medical covereage either - just being called one, so that the people who flail against the strawman can be "champions of The People" in opposing actual universal healthcare.

You see, the neat thing is how tax money goes to the insurance companies who have done such a good job providing ever cheaper forms of insurance, because what those tax breaks mean is that if you earn less than a certain amount, you still get as much as you normally would taken out of your paycheck for income tax, but part of that "tax" actually doesn't go to pay for public services (and the military and shit of course, but let's focus on the things people care about tax being spent on), but is instead siphoned off to your insurance company.

which means that the tax breaks for the rich, which would be repealed to pay for hte admin side of things (which of course adds another cost the insurance companies will use to justify yet more increases to premium rates, woohoo) then get pushed back into the hands of... the rich people who own the insurance companies.

F'king A.

But the mandatory aspect means that if you don't get yourself insured - because, say, you're happier with your income tax going to things other than the many chinned caviar eating LoliCon attendees that your insurance premiums are mostly paying for at the moment, and also you like doing things like paying the rent and eating and similar frivolous shenanigans the poor insist on throwing money after - you actually end up paying more than you currently do and (drum roll please) YOU STILL DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO MEDICAL COVERAGE.

but what I'm loving was the justification for it, the rationalisation for what is basically a bare naked strip show by the dem candidates who are basically trying to get the backing of the business community with this bullshit, yes folks, because guess who's fault the current healthcare crisis turns out to be.

You'll never guess.

It's NOT the insurance companies of course, who due to the vast meritocracy of hte freemarket are forced, FORCED I say! to raise premium prices to ridiculous levels for even the most basic coverage, nor is it even the drug and medical equipment companies for using copyright lawyers to keep prices high on their products.

Of course not, don't be silly. Many Chinned CEOs are never at fault of course.

It's the uninsured's own fault of course! (oh don't be shocked) For this is the age of randomised and inconsistent personal responsibility, and don't you just know it; it turns out the reason people are limiting their life expectancy is because they're just silly little dunderheads who thiink they can get by with untreated painful stomach ulcers and leave those pesky long term progressive conditions without treatment.

Yeah, Hillary and Obama have actually gone to the level of declaring "stop hitting yourself *punch* stop hitting yourself *punch*".

Man those fuckers are "eloquent", really well spoken there Hillary.

I shouldn't be shocked. I shouldn't even be surprised. This is SOP for everyone in the government, and has been for the past 50 years or so. basically, the government has been run in a way that requires it to constantly point out that it is in fact powerless to actually do anything useful, about anything on any issue, irregardless of which party is in power, all to justify, to rationalize and apologise for its aggressively proactive hands-off, non-interventionist policy towards the predation of the rich upon poor, man against woman, and white against brown.

But what I love is that we have a health insurance system being posited - by both dem candidates no less - that actually makes it debatable whether the age old "lesser of two evils" line still applies to the dems, because for McCain to really gain the lead in the age ol' "screw the poor, I got mine" battle between the Masonic Lodge of The Blessed Reach-Around Donkey and the Elephantine Knights of Selffellatio, he would actually have to adopt this system for his own... while also instituting slave labor camps for welfare recipients and immigrants (legal or otherwise).

becuase it's got everything a centrist could want to screw the poor unwashed masses - it's got the meritocracy handwave at it's prow, while also being quantitively better off for the rich while fucking over the poor using a system of taxation that in turn supports the idea that any universal health care system MUST use taxation to the detriment of the many, and to the gain of the few, even as the people denouncing such things are making money from it and who's politics are based around screw the poor policies.

It basically would kill not just the immediate application of universal healthcare, by being a sort of crappy saw-dust based hotdog that business interests and politicians can put forth to block actual universal healthcare plans - none of which are going to be allowed to be defined as "reasonable" or "practical" compared to this hideously unreasonable and massively impractical (even across the board deregulation of insurance companies would be better than this, ffs, versus the **cking freemarket this plan loses, and I swear that takes actively intentional effort usually***) - while also killing any future hope of the damn thing becuase, like with reinvigorating southern industry, when people start talking about universal healthcare the business interests and hteir puppets will just point to the inevitable collapse of this vile system of out and out prole-bashing as fudging proof that universal healthcare cannot work - what foreign countries? are you a communist francomuslim pussy?

the real kicker of course is that there is nothing stopping an actual working system of universal healthcare except this inexplicable fear of provoking the unimpressive wrath of hte insurance companies, because if they instituted a full blown system of socialized medicine, not only would it not break the fucking bank as repugs and some of the Obama fanboys seem to be all too happy to imply, it would actually be a win-win situation for both Bourgious (who can save a shit load of money by no longer having to pay the insurance companies, and are therefore able to compete with european and asian businesses on an even footing) and Proletariat (who would finally be able to actually get that thing on their scrotum looked at without going broke while not even being able to afford it being treated).

And if the dems are too stupid, and surround be other people who even more stupid than they themselves are, to think up actual universal care plans, well shucks, they could have asked! I Coulda provided a f***ing sliding scale of working systems, as could anyone with even a passing claim to f***ing sentience who put their mind to becuase it's not that fucking hard a thing to do, and you can even copy the system from, say germany or something. After all, they felt free to use jim crow as a basis for the nurembuerg laws, so I don't see why we can't recipricate the favor and copy something not actually out and out evil off of them. Mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery after all.

A ssytem no better than the current one would have been one thing, a system actively worse smacks of full blown malevolence.

But I guess this is what I get for not paying to much attention to what the muffclowns are up to...

* The problem isn't even the outsourcing really as far as I'm concerned, but the military industrial complex that maintains tyrranical regimes in the countries who provide outsourceable labor - who in turn only make economic sense to outsource jobs to as long as they are exceptionally cheaper to "employ" than local workers.

And due to the fact that the man/hour doesn't just magically cost less if the hour belongs to a man who has a different skin tone (though don't think there ain't more than a few genteel middle class marxist racists who truly do think that the White Man/Hour is worth more than the Brown's, and that it's suddenly a meritocracy when capitalism happens to other people), you need a mechanism to explain the difference, and that folks is where the international web of state violence called globalisation comes in. and yes, it involves a lot of work done, and which has to happen to keep the entire system upright, and wages for do-nothing CEOs and insurers high and the working classes' wages low.

** Well no. But the point is that it could have been.

*** the freemarket is ridiculously unoptimized for doing the things Adam Smith said it should do, and that's if we ignore the small problem that if it's in the best interest of a group of economic agents to form a national governement to protect their best interests against competition, they will. So you have a system that is built so that it almost immediately collapses into a World Bank or NAFTA type creature, leading eventually from that to a kleptocratic totalitarian state, and Hillary and Obama's Healthcare plan still loses.

And that's terrible.

My policy on Hillary Clinton

I know this is really belated but I just want to say one very important thing:

Of all the stupid, poorly thought out down right mentally retarded ideas I have ever had the misfortune to witness being put forth in my entire life, the idea of Hillary clinton actually getting nominated is the most stupid by far.

Let me just lay this one out for folks who don't get what I'm talking about here:

The first, and for me the worst, problem with Hillary is that she has no policies, and her "message" is... there's no message, for fuck's sake, a goddamn Mime is better able to communicate what they're passionate about than she is.

So basically she's running on a platform of "vote for me!" period, full stop, end of message.

But wait, what about her voting record?

For the patriot act, both when it was foirst put ot vote and then again in 2006 when it was up for renewal(!), which means that even if you accept the "everyone else was doing it" nonsense rationalization that most dems throw out when called on doing what amounts to wiping their ass with the consitution and civil liberties, Hillary actually then went out and actively approved of it the second time around when a lot of otherwise spineless dems felt they could get away with being absent or actually voting against it.

She took a day off when the bankruptcy bill was put to the vote - despite being vocally against it, so not just a douche who hates the poor, but a two faced douche who hates the poor.

And as for the iraq war, well, can you say "for it before she was against it?".


The only democrat who's managed to brown nose the bush admin's worse excesses more than hillary is basically Lieberman - she is in short, not a nice woman, and she's married to the guy who set up a nasty little extra-legal holding facility for HIV+ haitian refugees, so when people discuss whether or not her time as first lady counts on her resume (it should in my opinion) they should bare in mind that they're basically discussing whether or not she's partially responsible for all the nastiness and bastardry Bill pulled off and which laid the ground work for the Bush administration to be as bad as it has been.

But wait you say, who cares about "idealism" and "litmus tests", you'll vote for any democrat just so long as they can beat the repugs? (go blue team go! We'll win the meaningless trophy of hollow authority this year!)

So you won't be voting for hillary basically?

because that's the thing - even the ol' cliche ridden, stupid as hell "pragmatic" voting strategy means Hillary is to be avoided like the fucking human plague she is. It's actually one of thsoe weird, once in a blue moon occurences actually: everyone from centrist tools to Radical progressives can coem together in their mutual hatred of Hillary.

The trouble, pragmatically speaking, is that the right wing has spent hte last ten years, at a conservative estimate, turning Hillary into the human avatar of their myriad strawliberals and strawfeminists so that by this point she's basically just a woman who's spare time is spent having unprotected sex with terrorist commumuslims and then aborting the resulting preganacies just for fun, and putting forth all the skeevy flag burning amendments and acceptably hysterical anti-video game legislation she has put forth in the past few years (because they don't have anything important to deal with in government these days, because it's just one of those slow decades you know?) will only achieve one very very simple fact: those who'll care about your actual voting record will hate you more, and those who won't care, won't care because you will always be "hitlery" in america's eye you vinegary backwash of crotch pus.

However, you may notice that this raises the small question of, if she's so fucking unelectable, why the hell did Edwards drop out and not her? Why, in short, did she get so fucking far if she's so "unelectable"? Surely the very fact that you're worried enough by her remarkable success to finally bother to slam her like this disproves your central thesis?

Let me make this clear then; I have found no one who would vote for or has voted for hillary clinton who is not also a complete bastard of some kind.

Case in point: Heart AND Ann Coulter AND Rush Limbaughn have all endorsed her.

Now that pretty much proves my point, but bellatrys mentions a ladder-pulling Latina bus driver and this I think pretty much represents the demographic that Hillary has inadvertantly tapped into.

Basically there are uncomplicated racists and there are complex racists. the uncomplicated racists work on the principle that if you're not one of Us you're one of Them, and then they set you on fire and rape your culture and children (not neccesarily in that order).

These bastards vote republican.

the complex racists are the sort of people who "aren't racist but" or are into the general fun and games of being a ladder pulling ethnic group members of one kind or another, often with a side order of Cosbyite waffles rounding off their specific bastardry.

These people are the "fence sitters" (who are actually solid democrats, have always been solid democrats, and are, in some instance at least, most probably Kos himself taking on the form of one of the lost soul's his vile demonic masters require him to collect each year) democrats have been playing too for the last couple of election cycles, and these people would rather knaw off their own limbs than vote for a black guy.

And while it may seem horribly reductionist to basically just call people who vote for hilalry racist, ladder pulling authoritarian brown noses, but it's the only thing that makes sense.

She's a terrible woman, she's a terrible politician and undoubtably smells of vinegar.

She's someone who normal non-idiot people can't even vote for, and even among idiots only a very special kind of idiot who ensure that "the race isn't about race" (which is why everyone keeps mentioning how race isn't a factor) can hold their noses long enoguh to vote for the Evil Creature of the White. Though maybe it isn't so impressive to find out that mouth breathers are kinda good at holding their noses for long periods of time, but you know what I mean. They're too stupid and horrible to be nauseated by the thought of voting for the vile alleged human basically.

And anyone trying to shovel some crap about her being "the feminist" choice can suck my wazoo - Obama is at least someone who wouldn't personally vote for parental consent laws or the repealing of Roe, even if he'd be perfectly fine with them being made into law as long as other people voted for them - because he's got that whole upperclass liberal sophistry thing going on, you know, no one but him exists, and so anything that happens in politics is just a point scoring thing and people's lives aren't, you know, at stake or anything.

But hillary? Hillary would personally enjoy watching women who survive illegal abortion being melted in a vat of acid as a form of execution. She's just that evil basically.

And in case you think that I'm going too far, maybe engaging in a bit too much hyperbole, let me just point out that I tried to think of something to make Hillary less likeable, and for a second I thought that, maybe, if she were to put on a strapon and anally rape an orphanage live on natioanl TV, and ended ever rape by dislocating her jaw and biting the child's head off... she'd probably come across as not only more human and down to earth than she does at the moment, she'd also be both more generally likable than she currently is and far far more likely to win an election should she actually get the nomination (Bush has done worse after all).

So unless Hillary rapes an orphanage and bites the heads off a bunch of kids therein, and the DLC still goes ahead and tags her for the presidency camapaign, I swear to god some of the DLC are gonna find themselves awoken in the middle of the night by me giving them an acid and broken glass based enema.

beacuse if Hillary gets tagged for the Dem's candidate, then we know for certain that the DLC is intentionally throwing these elections as some of the more cynical out there have been guessing in a half joking fashion. And that makes them accomplices in the Bush Admin's evils.

And vici french get vici strung up by meat hooks and stabbed by local children as A-grade edutainment about not selling your soul for fucking peanuts.

Do Not Want Dammit.

Cosby Kid Mychal Bell to perform Plea Perjory against the other 5 Jena defendants

The prosecution for the Jena 6 is back with a brand new vision: Mychal Bell advised to commit plea perjory make a plea bargain to avoid having his previous thrown in his face, on account of so called "overwhelming evidence". (via*)

Note of course that it is unlikely that Mychal bell's testimony will be considered invalid THIS TIME, due to not accusing poor ickle sawn-off shotgun weilding white kids of threatening him with a gun (which, remember, led to him being charged with theft), but is basically being forced to throw his co-defendants, some of whom were probably not even there a the start of the school yard brawl that culminated this mess into a national scandal, into the legal threshing machine to save his own ass.

What do you think Prognosticatory Deep Sea Anglerfish?**


Okay, now could everyone who whined and moaned in defense of the "poor" "boys" of the Duke Lacrosse team when they were "unfairly" "maligned", "had their lives ruined" and "persecuted", please take one step forward.

Okay, now note how much your hyperbole failed. because let's be honest, there was no bias with the Lacrosse Rape case.
There was no boys involved even. There was no year long fight just to get the Lacrosse rapists charged with a crime they might possibly have committed, rather than murder wiht a deadly weapon and conspiracy to commit murder with a deadly weapon. What the Lacrosse Rapists did, didn't occur after two previous fights had been started by the stripper, the penultimate one of which involved her waving a sawn-off shotgun around while threatening to rape the Lacrosse crackers herself. And the result of the stripper waving a sawn-off shotgun around certainly wouldn't have ended with the Lacrosse rapists being charged with theft because they wrestled the gun off of her. And even then, rape, unlike a randomised schoolyard beating, is never justifiable, whereas handing a beatdown to shotgun waving racist moron is something I find hard to condemn for some inexplicable reason. Can't think why. /sarcasm

So let's cut it down to the bone here; after a year of struggle by civil rights campaigners to get the ridiculously human schoolyard fight redefined as something other than assault with a deadly weapon, because, if the "why you're picking on us?" folks in Jena are to believed then Jena is full of people who believe that the Boxer rebelliion was put down through western jesustude, rather than because bullets work. After a year the decision to down grade "tennis shoes" from the status of a deadly weapon back to an item of clothing was forced upon Jena, so that instead of six minors being charged as adults we have... six minors being charged as adults, some of them for a crime they probably didn't commit anyway, even if you accept the whole nonsense of putting kids into adult prison for a schoolyard fight that even the most extreme pacifist would admit was kinda unavoidable at that point. But it's at least no longer a charge that's actively taking huge heaping ten gallon hats full of piss, and makes the marcottian style "buh...buh...buh...but we're not racist!" pleas form Jena residents stretch belief beyond the breaking point.

Or at least, the current charges don't stretch belief taht far as long as you ignore the whole "juveniles being tried as adults" thing, and the whole "juveniles being tried as adults for a playground fight" thing and are prepared to ignore that the Jena courts have by this point earned enough contempt to make any unbiased bystander arrestable for contempt of court.

Oh, and the way that one of the adolescents is now being pressured with arrest on a prior offense - which of course the police and courts could ignore before because it's never "conspiracy to pervert the course of justice" when the police and courts make sure that crimes are just...forgotten, when it's convenient and when doing so helpfully allows them to get previously untrustworthy witnesses to say whatever the hell the prosecution wants them to say.

Especially when it's likely not true in the cases of a few of the Jena Remainders.

However, the one thing I really hope I don't see is people bitching about how Mychal Bell is a snitch and has let down the other Jena defendants. If you accept the charges, then a fair trial would likely find Mychal guilty enough to send him to one of hte institutional rape camps we call "prison". He's stuck between a rock and a hard place then, either sacrifice himself so that the authorities can't send the message they want to send*** or take the council his, likely very pale (I can't find a picture of mychal bell's lawyer so I might be wrong on that point), lawyer is advising. Yes, the noble thing for him to do is to take the butt raping for the team but let me reiterating that main point again:

He's a kid, not some 20-something Duke brat but an actual "boy", who shouldn't be being looking at an adult punishment for a crime that is still so unbelievably silly, and yet who is being advised by all the adults who are able to contact him at the moment to snitch. Damn right he's scared because the authorities are telling him that they can get him, irregardless of whether it makes sense or whether he actually did something, it's the message he's being used by the authorities to convey, and it's one that's clearly been conveyed to him already. And like a kid, he's not doing the noble self sacrificing thing instead of the dirt selfish thing.

Because.

He's.

A Kid.

That they're trying to send the message they're sending is disgusting enough, htat they trying to cosbify this kid into passing the message along to the black community, no doubt as an extra litle racist "fuck you" created in response to this year's earlier demonstrations and fight by the nation's POC to get the original extra-bullshitty charges dropped - which one will remember really annoyed alot of the white folk in Jena even as they *snort* plead innocent to the charge of racism - that manages to go beyond even the usual bottom feeding, slimy, scum sucking bastardry typical of say the LAPD and begins to chart whole new courses into the murky waters of Mare Strom Thurmond.

* and yet more from BA here.

** crappy picture courtesy of Photoshop Elements, which I finally got my hands on and which turns out to suck more than the free Ultimate Paint program I usually use. Photoshop sucks. bleh.

*** because the courts in Jena, due to them following through on this ludicrous charge, after the even more ludicrous charges they had before, are rather obviously trying to send nohting less than a rather obvious message to the black community of Jena and the surrounding areas that white folk can still "destroy you with a stroke of a pen". Which in my non-legal pov works out to what amounts to a hate crime - akin to, if not hugely WORSE than, the original noose hangings, except this time it'll end with the Jena 6 getting anally raped by vengeful white prison guards.

Puppy Swallowing: a metaphor for the democratic party

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

...And For My Next Trick I Shall Poke A Killer Whale

For those of you who've seen the really fucking long incredible and astounding True Front of Progressivism post by The unapologetic mexican, have probably become really interested in the possibility of a blow up between Nezua and David Neiwert of Orcinus. Well it ain't happening.

However I'm still gonna take Orcinus' (And note that I'm gonna call Neiwert "orcinus" for the rest of this post for the sole and singular reason that I'm never quite sure I'm spelling his name correctly, but orcinus refers to killer whales, who are cuddly. I get really dyslexic with names and words with lots of I E and As near each other, largely because the bits of my brain that should care about the order the letters should go in, doesn't) complaints and stuff from the Jesus General thread and faf with them for the very sensible seeming (at least to my mind) reason that all the white people who want to play pretend that they live in a cuddly world where Obama Barack is not a token, are looking like they're gonna latch onto Orcinus' reaction to Nezua's post to rationalise their willfull ignorance about matters that no white person has ever had a legitimate excuse to be ignorant about in the first place (other than our innate laziness of course).

So it should therefore be noted that this is not an attack on orcinus, who is one of those blogs that I think does very important and insightful stuff, along with all the other such blogs, and I really really liked strawberry days.

But still, the only way to fight the slimy critters who hide under rocks such as the one Orcinus unwittingly provided for them (for understandable reasons, which I'll cover in a bit), is to pick the rocks up and expose the worst of the bunch to daylight, or to pour salt on them, depending on the slimey critters in question.

So with no further moderation of what I'm about to say let's hit it:

Look, I think Nez's overarching point is valuable, but I'm fucking furious about this.

When the hell was I designated "the face" of the left blogosphere on race?

I spent much of last week traveling and dealing with a family death, and what posting I did was done on the ferry and late at night when I could squeeze a little time in.

When the fuck was it that I was named the White Man in Charge of the Race Discussion? I'm just a guy posting in his garage and I do the best I can.

Nez, not only do you hold me to a ridiculously high standard, but it's one that you're not willing to meet yourself. Where were the links from you when I wrote the eliminationism series, especially the stuff on immigration? You're just getting around to reading it now!

Incidentally, I had been warning about the likelihood of concentration camps resulting from immigration policy well before Hutto came up. See here, here and here for example.

You'd know that if you'd been reading me all along, Nez. But you haven't, so you don't really know what I've been saying. Now you want to come in and tell me what I need to be writing about? I don't think so.

Now this is a comment of rage and fury which is kinda out of proportion to what Nezua actually said about Niewert, which was this:

Reading Digby yesterday, I was enjoying a post called It's Baaack, where he writes that "Via Dave Niewert at Orcinus I see that America's ugly white underbelly is showing again" and goes on to inform his readers that "Niewert's work is very important at a time like this because he has documented how these racists and eliminationists are given permission by mainstream figures to let their bigot flag fly:"

And I thought America's ugly white underbelly is...'back?' Really? I thought to myself where had it gone, then? And I went to Niewert's blog, which so often has very well-researched articles that tie in historically. The man does an astounding amount of research, and also posts very beautiful pictures of whales. Still, I had to ask myself why it was that Digby thought "America's ugly white underbelly" had gone anywhere. Was it because he reads Orcinus to keep up on it?

Now it's understandable that orcinus might get a bit angry about this, Nezua is after all snarking on digby and quite a few other a-listers using a technique known as "taking them at face value, and running with it".

Now you wouldn't think that taking what people say at face value would be that annoying really, after all, Amanda Marcotte and any number of other people have pointed out that it's not very fair to expect white writers to actually be aware of the contexts and subtexts that are contained in and surround their writings - unfortunately they've yet to explain why this is so, but I'm sure they'll do it one day - but nonetheless it is one of the most clever ways to convey snark because writers use subtexts and context to convey thoughts, and actually taking a blog post literally enugh that you fail to engage with the context the writer intended to center the post around, and thereby change subtexts that relied on that context, leads to the entire blog post itself being read in a way the original writer never meant for it to be read.

In this particular instance, Nezua takes Digby's statement that "Niewert's work is very important at a time like this because he has documented how these racists and eliminationists are given permission by mainstream figures to let their bigot flag fly:" and makes you view it from a different angle than the one Digby intended.

Of course, the entire rest of Nezua's post should lead the reader to realise that the context that's being substituted for the intended one is of course the one in which the A-Listers have been soaking in furiously for the past year or so. For those just tuning in, that's the one in which they've been engaging in petit eliminationist tactics towards POC, radical and feminist bloggers, not to mention the careful watering down of truly progressive politics to the end of "passing" as members of the political punditocracy, which goes on top of the overtly racist, sexist, and just plain bigoted stuff those A-listers have been churning out of late, in the name of "progressive politics".

One of the favorite statements by these A-listers to rationalise all that, has been a routine and constant declaration that "they don't have time" (in between setting their threadbots up in the morning and counting their six figure ad revenue in the evening, she said snarkily), either to read the blogs that would give them the information and education they frankly need if they're gonna have any hope of not being such fucking idiots (ffs), or to blog about all those issues... Like hte detention centers, like the intersection of immigration policies, that a lot of their pet politicians support, with reality, and like the more subtle and routinely accepted aspects of the whole wider system of white supremcy and colonialism.

So when an A-Lister declares that a blog is important, because it deals with issues like racism, and eliminationism, well that's a huge fucking statement! Here we have a time poor blogger, who usually just cannot find the time to deal with such things, declaring that not only is dealing with such things very important, but that at last someone, among all the millions of blogs, is finally actually doing what the poor hard working A-lsters are unable to do!

And of course, for those who don't get the other side of teh joke, Nezua is actually mocking the fact you'd have to be pretty fucking ignorant of what Orcinus usually contains to talk about Orcinus' work documenting instances of racism and eliminationism, and at the same time name the blog post "It's baaack!", given that Orcinus makes it quite clear in post after post after post that the racism didn't actually go anywhere, that it in fact has always been there, teetering on the very brink of public awareness.

But given that, well why is Orcinus angry?

Well lets look at his next comment, and deal with this whole "safe" issue he raises:

As I said, I think Nez's underlying point is important. You know, I think a lot of white folks who are sincerely progressive about racial issues like to think that it's not "their issue" -- they leave the advocacy up to the minorities who they see as that constituency. I happen to think racial issues affect us all and are the provenance of every progressive. I'm kind of baffled that I'm one of the few who does talk about those issues consistently, particularly the immigration debate.

But really, it's against my nature -- and part of the parcel -- to bang my shoe on the table when no one pays attention. You know, this idea that I'm an "A-lister" really doesn't hold up: I get about 3,000 hits daily, which is very healthy, but far below what the General gets, or Digby, or many many others. And frankly, the more I've talked about immigration, the more traffic, and more especially my links for the real A-listers, has tapered off -- but that hasn't changed my focus.

What really dismayed me, though, and still does, is being described as "safe." What I do isn't safe. Confronting neo-Nazis and racists isn't safe. Pointing out the flow of extremism into mainstream conservatism, and calling it for what it is (namely, fascism) isn't safe -- what happens, actually, is what has happened to me, namely, that you get tagged an alarmist and a race-monger. Again, that hasn't changed my focus.

Being called "safe" really takes for granted the many risks I've taken over the years and continue to take, both personally and professionally. And I insist on taking them when necessary because it is, after all, my job.

Now aside from that most inexplicable reading of Nezua's post, where I'm confused as to where exactly orcinus is called an A-Lister in that post, let alone where Nezua makes (rather than mocks) any assertions that Orcinus is the spokesperson for anti-racist blogging or something, the whole "safe" issue is the crux of the whole affair.

You see, one of the things is that Orcinus is the most well known anti-facist blogs. in part this is due to his status as some who blogs about the extreme end of the far right, the neo-nazis and skin heads, the violent nutters and the vocal eliminationists. In short, orcinus is very emotionally safe for a lot of the "I'm not a racist but..." types on the left, because he does focus on the overt and the unsubtle aspects of white supremecy and racism.

This focus makes him highly accessible, to some extent, to people that cannot read blogs like Bfp's or BA's or Silence of Our Friends or The Unapologetic Mexican, because all of them focus quite heavily on the day to day insults and hatreds that get thrown at POC, and all of them make no bones about attacking the subtle bigots right alongside the more overt ones that unfortunately seem to be in charge in the government and media. Which, as you could imagine, would be something of a major turn off for people who themselves are those subtle bigots and unreconstructed Class White Folk.

Orcinus does not require that a reader face their own bigotries and prejudices, and therefore, orcinus is quite clearly far far "safer", emotionally, for those leftwing assholes to read and to praise as doing "important work".

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Orcinus should suddenly change tact and start attempting to talk about what it's like to be a black woman in a white man's world (to grossly insult all WOC who's blogging could be summarised as such, but I'd have to stab you in the neck if you did), largely because A) Orcinus as it is works, it does everything you could want such a blog to do and B) I don't think Orcinus could be that sort of blog and work anyway, wrong sort of writer, wrong sort of blog.

But just because I cannot fault Orcinus for being what it is, and being damn good at the same time, doesn't mean that it isn't what it is: emotionally safe for the closet racists to view and point at and say "look at them righties! Oh what nasty nasty peopel they are! Unlike us, and please please vote for Barack 'the eloquent negro' Obama!"

But WHY IS ORCINUS ANGRY!? You cry, after I avoid the question again, well I'm getting to that.

Now I want it noted that I read through Nezua's post, and I asked myself at several key points; is he talking about me? Do I need to...err...blog harder about...erm...stuff? (and then thought: That was a really stupidly phrased thought, is the Synonym Lobe drunk again?)

When non-white people talk about white people, there is that nasty tendency to assume that they're talking specifically about you, becuase there's always that fear that you are just that bit more racist than you realise, that bit less self-aware than you thought you were, becuase you walk around day after and see all the unreconstructed white racists who are convinced, absolutely fucking convinced for no discernible reason anyone can make out, that they're not racists, that they're Nice Guys and good and pure and the model of Die Colorblind Ubermenschen.

But they're not, and their unslain buddhas hangs over you and you wonder... are they talking about me? In that wonderfullly self centered way that members of The Normative Groups for some reason excel at, that makes it all about MeMeMeMeMe.

However, I'm someone who has already killed a shit lot of buddhas, when people talk about JG or World O' Crap's comments being cesspits, I know what they're talking about because I was one of those strange beige turds that are so often found in such public toilets.

"Mann coulter" and similar jokes, check.

Michelle Malkin manatee + ping pong balls jokes, check.

Been there, want to hurt myself at the memory, got the T-Shirt that says "What an Asshole" on it.

Yes... you mutter, your point?

Well back when I had more buddhas, the biggest, and always the worst, the ring leader of all the other buddhas in fact, was the one that puts it's arm around your shoulder whenever people criticise you about certain, shall we say, hegemonically approved behaviors and attitudes, and calmly says to you "hey baby, you ain't gonna take that are you? Did you hear what they called you? Whatcha going to do about it hmm?" and will spend a heck lotta time reassuring you that you're the one who was wronged here, they said this! They said that! How dare they insult MeMeMeMe!?

That Nezua was essentially talking over Orcinus, and pointing to the "safe for tender white tuckuses" anti-racist blog's own language to basically say "Wow, he's right, Orcinus really is saying stuff that needs to be said, which really is interesting and useful... shame the A-Listers didn't actually read it eh?"

But if Nezua had mentioned me by name in the way he mentioned Orcinus, well yes, I'd have assumed he was criticising me personally until I caught myself thinking in so utterly self centered a fashion.

Admittedly I am, at all times, just about barely restraining myself from killin someone for irritating me, and thus probably not exactly the best example from which to judge what's normitive in this matter, but nonetheless, the reaction, being as it is a hugely self importance misreading of Nezua's post, is all white privelage (those assumptions that it's all about us, and that we are probably not really at fault, not really, that excuse us from double checking to see if we're actually being attacked before reacting to it), all buddha, and a shame really, because it feeds the problem that Nezua was attacking, and which Orcinus is quite firmly against in the first place. But it's not even really his fault, expecting perfection at all times is a good way to find nothing but disappointment, and it must be said that he came off it far more gracefully than I would have (thought, again, note the whole "barely restraining myself from killing people" thing), but still, fundamentally, he was chatting crap, but at least would be the first person to object to the slimey tools who want to forgive blatant and rampant willingness on the part of the Big Name blogs to avoid talking about serious issues like racism and immigration, because it's a matter that they fucking well should make time For, because it has to be dealt with, because as everyone for whom racists damn well makes time to oppress will tell you; only a total idiot would think that it wasn't fundamentally important, otherwise what the fuck is the point of all this blogocubing business in the first place?

Also this post of donna's is really really good.

...And now I shall stop speaking for Nezua *cusses*.

Yolanda Wins April (unless BA already got that, in which case Yolanda gets May)

Read it personages or persons unknown!

1. You can be a good, decent, loving, caring person and be a white male supremacist.
2. You can be a hard-working, dedicated, self-sacrificing person and still have unearned privilege.
3. White male supremacy is a system of power, not a moral failing or an individual flaw.
4. Having a spouse of color and/or children of color does not make a person antiracist.
5. Working with, helping out, donating money to, or otherwise providing resources and services to people of color does not make a person antiracist.
6. Being a fan of, an expert on, or a scholar of Native American literature, Eastern religions, manga, Afro-Asian languages, jazz, reggae, anime, Bollywood cinema, hip-hop, or national liberation movements does not make a person antiracist.
7. Being a woman, lesbian, gay, transgendered, or poor DOES NOT negate one’s white and/or male privilege.
8. Even if most men are not rapists, 99% of rapes are committed by biological men. This is a political reality.
9. All human beings are equal. Men and women are not equal.
10. All human beings are equal. White people and people of color are not equal.
11. All human beings are equal. The rich and the poor are not equal.
12. One does not need to be a white person to be a white supremacist.
13. One does not need to be a man to be a misogynist.
14. One can be both antiracist and white supremacist (Example: yours truly).
15. One can be both feminist and misogynist (Example: yours truly).
16. Critique of privileged and/or oppressive behavior is not a personal attack.
17. Resistance to oppressive bevavior is not a personal attack.

And most important:

No matter how long you have lived, what you’ve experienced, what work you have done, you will never outgrow the need to change.

Damn the Black Jewish Female Hispanics who wadded up my silken panties!

I'm sure there's a word for this other than "stupid". (hat tip to BA)

Can't think of one yet.

It's an interesting whine, one does however wonder what manner of crazy nonsensical fairies she's batting at with the post.

Of course she, like many of these conservative, *sigh*, "shock" bloggers doesn't seem to know what the "bad words" she's flinging around actually mean.

And I do actually sigh everytime I encounter this pathetically dull brand of comedy, because I like intelligence in my comedy, that's why I like hip-hop, there's word plays and irony and puns that don't suck toast - and best of it has tragicomic elements.

I also love the work of Spike Milligan, and most of it is, unabashadly racist - it was written in the 50's and 60's, even if it was written in britain which didn't have segregation or anything, so the lines of comedic taste are further towards pandering to the tastes of racists than otherwise.

but does any goonshow episode have the sort of words that the modern "shock" "anti-PC" "comedians"? No.

Why? Because it didn't need to, Milligan could whip out actual satire, and wierd little surrealistic things, could even play with racist stereotypes, there's one episode where they have a ridiculously over the top "Umm me big chief" type character, who of course shows up to give the cowboys (who's fort has of course moved over onto "Indian" land because it was built on shifting sands) a bill for unpaid taxes on the booze that was transported across the border in the fort.

The juxtapositioning of the uncultured savage stereotype with the idea of customs inspectors is the source of the comedy in that joke, not the stereotype itself - and it's practically a mcguffin, because the rest of the episode revolves around the sheer stinginess and cowardliness of the cowboys who are trying to do everything in their power to avoid paying taxes on the booze - until the episode culminates in Commander Bloodnock declaring that they'll have to "drink their way out" of the predicament.

However the best "joke" from the Goonshow is, imho of course, something from the episode "the yeti".

It's an odd joke, which I haven't even seen done elsewhere - probably because it only really works with radio. It relies not a traditional punchline of any kind because the punchline is that, during an inexplicable shift from a dialogue based narrative structure to a first person narrative structure, the point of view suddenly gets switched around between two people so that one voice actor ends up narrating from the first person for the character played by the other voice actor.

That's a rather dry of explaining it, basically, the usual narrative of the goon show is expounded through characters talking to each other and the sound effects, but for no real reason (other than to satirise the radio serials of the day which resorted to first person narratives, but you don't have to know that to get the actual punchline) the narrative suddenly shifts to a first person narrative, told from the perspective of the character Neddy Seagoon (played by harry seacombe)...

Neddy Seacombe: As I was sitting down to watch the telly in the house next door but one, we had thins walls you see, there came a knock from the front door...

*sound of two knocks and a crashing noise*

Gridpipethin: I appear to have put my fist through your door...

NS: He said. don't worry about it, a bit of plaster should sort it out.

G: He said. Oh don't worry I only grazed my knuckles.

...And somewhere during this is a bizare interchange with lots of "he said I said he said" after which NS ends up with the part of gridpipethin and G ends up finishing the skit with; "and after gridpipethin left, I sat down to watch the telly in the house next door but one..." and the audience is left confused but amused at the way the switch round was done so fluidly that you know that the narrative perfectly justified the switch round while at the same time the actual switch around makes no sense whatsoever.

You may at this point wonder why I'm waffling like this, well that's a simple question to answer - because I'm amused but confused at that anti-PC post, except with out the amused part because there's no actual switch around, nor build up or set up for the gag, she just comes out and basically says "political correctness was created by oppressed peoples".

Now I'm going to say what all progressives know but probably don't say to often because it's so pathetically obvious that it'd be like stating the color of the sky or pointing out that things fall towards the ground - you don't have to state it, it's that obvious and well known.

but I'm gonna say it, because it should clarify what's so very very very wrong with that post, what is in fact wrong with every single post any conservative has ever written about the great beast called "political correctness". In so doing I will of course be agreeing with the original post, but I shall then explain away the nonsensical juxtapositioning of reality with conservative fantasy which, I'm reasonably certian, is what is sucking "teh funny" out of every single attempt by conservatives to be humorous.

So here's the blatantly obvious: Political Correctness is racist.

Yes, I know, they actually brought me down to their level of pathetic-obviousness-cum-revelatory-gnostic-truth, but it obviously needed saying by a non-idiot.

Why is it racist though? Ah yes, I know, I know, "because political correctness is a term for the 'polite' 'civil' and otherwise politically acceptable ways for white people to screw over the downpressed, hence the name 'political correctness'", I know that, and you know that, but the poor little dearie at violent acres doesn't, nor do any of the other half witted o'rly-wannabe buffoons out there.

it's not their fault, they're stupid, it doesn't make them bad people.

The fact that they seem to wallow in these childish cries for attention they portray as "humor" at the expense of oppressed people does however make them both bad people, and even worse than that: Bad comedians.

That's what's so wrong with evil clowns, The Clown is a creature designed by evolution over millions of years to be amusing, but never is, and I think you'll find that in nature, the eviller the clown, the more convinced they are of their own jocularity.

And make no mistake, the sad, warped and just plain unfunny nature of the evil clown's attempts at humor are no accidental coincidence, but is in fact causative - the evil clown is unfunny because it can't take being told that it's not funny, it cannot accept that its jokes do not tickle peoples' funny bones, and these facets of the evil clowns' personality lead it to also be evil - evil is inversely proportional to a person's ability to laugh at themselves, which is what allows comedians to actually grow as comedians in the first place, that ability to adapt and refine their act until it actually becomes funny. And with that, they end up learning to accept heckling and/or criticism without being a whiney baby.

Evil Clowns laugh at their own jokes, but never at themselves, and thus can never grow as comedians.


*waves at Bill O'rly*

In part, this is due to the fact that comedians have to know what they're tlaking about, comedy is a form of poetic almost scientific examination of the world, a method of parsing down reality to its basest form.

This has largely taken the form of fart jokes through out the millenia, especially with thomas edison for some reason (he invented a rectal stovepipe to direct farts out of smell and out of mind), largely because life is pretty fart-like - stinky and socially awkward.

But I would be very surprised if those early cave paintings of well endowed men weren't an early form of satirical cock mockery that has evolved into today's humorous progressive bloggers. Of course the modern progressive bloggers mock the modern republican party's obsession with man love, especially in light of which ever gay republican has unveiled his "no homo pro bono" policies this week, rather than just pointing and laughing at the tribal leader's bizarre propensity for adding padding into his banana hammock.

Of course why conservatives aren't funny is also due to the fact that, while they have troubles laughing at themselves, this is in large parts due to their inability to actually stop and observe reality prior to trying to laugh at it - they just know how the world works, mexicans are lazy, jews are greedy, black people are scum - they know these things so why should they bother actually trying to learn anything?

But this leaves them deeply unfunny because you can't pun if you don't understand what two homophones each mean.

So when violent acres says "nigger", she's using it as she understands the word - she knows what it means, it means "black person", and damn the eyes of anyone who tries to add context or baggage to that word - and of course she's using it in the infantile way conservatives always have used it outside the confines of political correctness; like a child saying "shit" to their parents, wiht about as much subtly or depth.

But what does "nigger" actually mean?

Well it doesn't just mean "black person", it means something along the lines of "slave/scum/untermenschen/blackperson" - actually that's not quite right because it doesn't mean any one thing exactly, but rather refers to a whole range of attitudes towards black people, and all of them are negative.

This is why PoC started reclaiming it - they call each other "nigger" to say "yes we're 'niggers', and we're proud of it", and this has gone on and gone on until it has gained its present meaning among PoC communities, so that when they say "nigger" they mean; "I am spartacus."

It's a method of showing solidarity.

This may also explains why Chris Rock was gibbering crap with his "and then there are niggers" skit, because nothing quite says responsible, politically aware black dude quite like using nigger with the exact same meaning as it has when Klansmen use the word.

Now don't get me wrong, he's got other material, and some of it is even funny, but the bit with the niggers seems to be the only bit that white people ever see for some reason, and way too many see that, go "woohoo!" and run off with some presumption of having license to divide "good" black people from those slave/scum/untermenschen/niggers and get attention from mommy by saying that oh so shocking word.

No you don't. Also, grow the fuck up already.

So with all this context, all this meaning, what of white folk using the word? And more to the point of violent acres' original post, what does this mean as far as political correctness goes. So let's get back to defining what we're actually talking about when say stuff.by

Now political correctness, as its name suggests, is the process and phenomenon where by white people now say and do certain things in a way that is politically acceptable.

What political correctness isn't, is black people, or jews or whoever getting pissed off and threatening white people until they shut up. Alas, it'd be nice if it was because then white people, who for some reason are deeply in love with sucking authoritive cock, wouldn't go about being deeply pleased that they can still verbally whip the plantation slaves, but it isn't.

What it is then, is that politicial correctness is racism via other means - white people aren't allowed to call black people niggers in public these days, not because it pisses off black people, but because it interrupts the business of screwing over black people through politically correct methods, because actually locking black people up by their ankles and forcing them to work for no money is only acceptable, if the black people in question can be labelled "criminals" in some way.

For instance, it is politically incorrect to call a black person "nigger", it is however politically correct to try to drown a city full of poor black people through gross incompetence.

Slavery is not politically correct, but maintaining a system of immigration laws and policies that enable white businesses to efficiently control non-white laborers through fear of deportment, incarceration and direct physical violence so that the non-white laborers are working for next to no pay , is politically correct.

Segregation is not politically correct, but linking property values to the major public services like schools, hospitals and public transport so that the dirt poor and non-white areas of the country that have the lowest property values as a result of segregation have disproportionately shitty public services while white areas that became incredibly affluent as a result of segregation have excellent public services, is politically correct.

Throwing jews into the siberian work camps is not politically correct, funding and arming the most violent and anti-semitic anti-isreali organisations is.

Funding and arming people who throw jews into gas chambers is NOT politically correct, funding and supporting the most incredibly reationary Isrealis who squelch non-violent anti-zionist groups, and who get the IDF to engage in atrocities and provocations that justify and support the most violently anti-semitic militant palestinian groups is very politically correct indeed.

"foul mouthed" is PC, "irrational and overly emotional woman" is un-PC.

"eloquent" is PC, "somebody shoot that uppity nigger already" is un-PC.

Asking "can't we just discuss keeping this minority from having full civil rights under law for the most asinine of reasons?" is PC, saying "I hate homosexuals" is not PC.

Saying "Affirmative Action means giving jobs and college places away to unqualified people" is both inaccurate, a lie, and deeply deeply Politically Correct.

On the other hand, saying "the legacy system and old boy network gives jobs and college places to unqualified people, and has in the last 6 years led ot the deaths of several thousand americans through incompetent people being placed into positions that required competent people - but at least they were white unqualified people, and most of the people they killed were either poor or black so that's alright then" is not PC.

"class war" is un-PC, "eminent domain" is PC.

"Anti-PC" is PC , "bigotry" isn't.

Are we seeing a pattern here yet?

Oh but that's unfair, what evidence exists to support these claims that Political Correctness is some doublethink method of making common racism and bigotry more acceptable?

Well because the basic logic that underpins the whole the thing doesn't make sense...

"Okay, so there's this grand conspiracy that is persecuting us right, that is in fact interfering with our constitutional right to free speech right, right, and this grand conspiracy, the sort of conspiracy that has launched the careers of countless radio and tv unpersonalities, which in fact justifies their existence to battle against this awesome force that oppresses countless middle class heteronormative cissies to the point where they spend every waking second of their day obsessing about whether or not some stray and entirely thoughtless action or utterance might bring down its almighty wrath upon them!"

Ooh-kay, and what does this conspiracy look like Dr. Oppressed?

"uh, well, you see when we call Them, you know, people who aren't heteronormative middle class cissies, names and things they find deeply offensive, or do things which makes their working and home lives unbearable, or when we, you know, sexually assault them or beat them up or murder them and blame it on our glands or make up other fake stories to justify it all they... well they complain! And then we feel guilty or people fail to treat us like we're nice people after they find out what we did!"

Uh...

"Why I remember this one time, at bandcamp, I raped this woman, and the lying bitch told on me..."

... err, how exactly was she a 'lying bitch', if you don't mind me asking?

"huh? Well she told people I raped her against her will! Can you believe it?"

O_o movingswiftlyon, and then what happened?

"yeah, where was I? Oh yeah, she fucking tattled on me, and then it got around camp people treated me like a complete jerk, and well, you can imagine how I felt after that can't you?"

I'd rather not. Uh, well thank you Dr Opressed, please be with the shutting up now!

You can, I'm sure see the serious fuckedupness of that strain of thought, basically you have freaking adults, grown boys and girls, crying foul when they limit themselves and then make up some mystical fucking force that means that the most privelaged, the people born with all the advantages it's possible in society to get, are whining, motherfucking whining, about how they have to actually moderate the tone ratehr than the intent of their language so that they're not obviously calling Obama Barack a muslim terrorist nigger.. Mark that htough; they don't even have to moderate their deep seated thoughts and beliefs as african and native americans and muslims and jews and catholics have all been expected to change their deepest held convictions over the centuries on the fucked up whims of colonialists and imperialists. If there was any frikking justice in this world...

They're being asked to use nothing more than the semblence of intelligence to proudly and boldly express their bigoted little thoughts in public and what do they say?

"I'm being oppressed by being expected to actually put even the most rudimentary amount of thought into what I say and do!"

It makes a kind of sense when IDers and evopsychics and Libertarians and gnostic cultural colonialists and other members of similar religions of wilful ignorance start whining about being expected to put the most rudimentary amount of thought into stuff.

But for you weirdos to be complaining about how your own demogogues are asking you to be less obvious about your assbaggery while at the same time complaining about how hte people your own consciences seem to be telling you to stop opressing are in fact opressing you by not allowing you to oppress them and...

Mein Gott! Do you see the convuluted nature of that last sentence? You see what I'm driven to?



And why the fuck do they even think that people who aren't them would want them to address them at all, let alone by some intentionally derogatory term? I'm a white het girl and I don't particularly like you using the same language as me, because you're kinda making them feel dirty, and not in that sexuality type way but in that "Richard M Nixon" kinda way.

So to help facilitate communications in future, let me give you a quick guide to how to address Other people:

Step 1: If you meet an Other person in the road, RUN AWAY! If they're black they might rape you and inject you with their evil bootilicious jungle fever, if they're gay you might catch homo-cooties, and if they're hispanics they'll probably retroactively get you hooked on hardcore narcotics in highschool.

Step 2: If step 1 for some reason fails and you are unable to get away from the Other person, as soon as you have the urge to cry "Yo! Queer!" or "Waaassup homey!" or "Hola my nigger! Clean my room!" simply think of them having sex with another of their kind, this will cause your sphincter to contract and promptly rob you of the power of speech until they are out of hearing range.

Step 3: If all else fails, I can only give you two further options to deal with the scourge of political correctness. First of all there is suicide, don't worry, it's less scary than you think it is because the distinction between brain death and your usual state of being is far greater than the bias on most medical instruments, the transition should therefore be neither difficult nor particularly shocking. the second option involve whining some more about it, because that's just so fucking productive dontchaknow.

But do it quieter, please, it's not that I object to you being loudly stupid, I'm white and therefore used to people like you, the problem is that what you're being stupid with is so void of content that I actually find myself liking creationists, because at least their evolving theories about biblical dinosaurs are amusing by comparison.

Whining incessantly while the point goes whoosh over your head? How is that even worth the time it took you to one-finger-type that all out?