googly eyed ?

[chiggerbit]

Really, Percy, you need to give up on this, as I've learned from first-hand experience. c2w had posted on a thread about New York intellectuals being a coded reference to Jews that I was absolutely sure was bizarre. Hell, i even asked my bestest Jewish friend if he had ever heard of New York intellectuals being code for Jews, and he said no, and he had travelled to New York frequently on business a couple of decades ago. So, eventually I googled it. Yep, wiki had it. I never argue with c2w now.

The New York Intellectuals were a predominantly Jewish group of American writers and literary critics based in New York City in the mid-20th century. They advocated left-wing politics but were also firmly anti-Stalinist. The group is known for having sought to integrate literary theory with Marxism and Socialism while rejecting Soviet Communism as a workable or acceptable political model.

[chiggerbit]

Let me correct that--my bestest friend, who happens to be Jewish.

[compared2what?]

We have a googly eyed Muslim army major who massacres a bunch of his comrades.

Another googly eyed Muslim getting tried as a "terrorist" in a civilian court for crimes committed on 9-11.

Another googly eyed man named Muhammed got executed AT 9:11 the other night.

And now Obama's googly eyed brother has spilled the beans about an abusive man, raised within the Islamic faith and just so happens to be Osababama's dad.

If you weren't trying to stir the pot or be racist, why the repetition of "googly eyed" at all? What non-racist meaning did it add?

Sweet jumpin' Jesus trampoline center. Sometimes you can't win to lose. I recognize that. I was PRECISELY pointing out the inherent and implicit racism that such actions play into the hands of. I thought at the time I was attempting to extrapolate the intended effect of an anti-muslim "psyop". Period.

I also thought most here may appreciate the irony of "googly eyed" dudes insofar as the clear and obvious MO of these recent developments. And BTW, I used to work in a liquor store in Denver many years ago and "googly eyed" was the term we all used to refer to the very far gone alkies. It's a term I've always used. And frankly, thinking about it, it only refers to crazy people when I employ the term.

Yes, I am still beating my wife.

If I haven't already made it crystal clear that I recognized that your explanation was sincere beyond question the first time you made it, please allow me to do so now. You are absolutely not being accused by me of any wittingly bad act of any kind. You never were. I should have made that clear in my post to the other thread. I say again that it's inexcusable that I didn't. But I didn't. As I said before, the egregious error in judgment was mine not yours. Because I knew the implications of the words I was using and I didn't believe that you did. I honestly didn't perceive how harshly what I wrote actually was. As one sometimes doesn't. I knew that what I meant was:


"You should be aware that the phrase "googly-eyed" in that context has racist connotations and they're very, very extreme. Roughly equivalent to the connotations of former Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz's career-ending quip that all the coloreds wanted was "tight pussy, lose shoes, and a warm place to shit."

IOW, it's associated with the unreconstructed pre-reconstruction racism of the Old South. I thought you'd want to know."

I wish I'd said that. It's what I meant. I thought, for god knows what reason, that my meaning was clear when I posted. That did not last any longer than it took for me to read it the second time 12 or so hours later.

I'm sorry. Very sorry. Please believe that there is no point related to your post that I'm standing by apart from:

"You should be aware that the phrase "googly-eyed" in that context has racist connotations and they're very, very extreme. Roughly equivalent to the connotations of former Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz's career-ending quip that all the coloreds wanted was "tight pussy, lose shoes, and a warm place to shit."

IOW, it's associated with the unreconstructed pre-reconstruction racism of the Old South. I thought you'd want to know."

Okay?

[compared2what?]

Really, Percy, you need to give up on this, as I've learned from first-hand experience. c2w had posted on a thread about New York intellectuals being a coded reference to Jews that I was absolutely sure was bizarre. Hell, i even asked my bestest Jewish friend if he had ever heard of New York intellectuals being code for Jews, and he said no, and he had travelled to New York frequently on business a couple of decades ago. So, eventually I googled it. Yep, wiki had it. I never argue with c2w now.

The New York Intellectuals were a predominantly Jewish group of American writers and literary critics based in New York City in the mid-20th century. They advocated left-wing politics but were also firmly anti-Stalinist. The group is known for having sought to integrate literary theory with Marxism and Socialism while rejecting Soviet Communism as a workable or acceptable political model.

Chig, you should question and criticize me if you think I've said something questionable or criticizable. I'm not fucking inerrant. And I'm not argumentative when people aren't insulting me. You and I had a perfectly amiable exchange of views regarding the use of plastic wrist ties on (by coincidence) one of the other threads related to race in which I posted a lot. So you know that it's possible to communicate with me over a disputed issue without character assassination. I believe you conceded in that instance. But I totally jumped all the fuck over Project Willow not long ago owing to a misunderstanding that was 100 percent mine, not hers. Which I realized as soon as I saw her non-character-assassinating response. Sunny totally chapped my ass for making an overconfident and incorrect JFK-related point not long ago. And I know that you've also let me know I was wrong when I was, though I can't recall when, precisely, off the top of my head.

In short, I don't fucking tenaciously defend my errors when they are errors. I do tenaciously defend my non-erroneous points when they're being called wrong on the grounds that my critics are ignorant of the information that I say is correct because it is correct, as either or both the search terms I suggested SMiles might have tried before deciding I was hyper-senstive and the Wiki entry for "Blackface" would show anyone who cared to check them out.

It's just information. It's not going to fucking bite anybody.


ON EDIT: I'm also not exactly a major advocate for the policy of suggesting other posters troll threads looking for excuses to call others racist in order make themselves look good; or that they're "hypersensitive"; or that what they're saying is "fucking stupid"; or that they've "polarized" the board; and then GIVING UP, if it happens to turn out that for some reason, they can't make the case for those remarks they initially thought they could. I mean, if they can make that case, they should make it. If they can't, there's no shame in admitting to having misunderstood something. There might or might not be something to regret about such an understanding. That's up to whoever's putative admission it is to determine, if they decide to make one.

But either way, I personally find I don't fucking learn from my mistakes when I don't fucking admit to them. It might not work for everyone. But I highly recommend it, myself.

[chiggerbit]

So you know that it's possible to communicate with me over a disputed issue without character assassination.

Oh, yes, i know that, without a doubt. And you can be fun to argue with. But, fuck, you can be so accurate that it's intimidating.

[chiggerbit]

NOT that I want you to be inaccurate, mind you.

[compared2what?]

But, fuck, you can be so accurate that it's intimidating.

May god forgive me for it. I would never seek to cause an innocent person to feel any form of fear. I'm sorry.

[chiggerbit]

The only thing you need to be sorry for--VERY sorry for--is for making the text too small to read. Fortunately for me, I now have Opera, which allows me to enlarge unreadable text, MOST of the time. But, damn, I monkeyed with my settings along the way, and have lost the ability to see colors most of the time, which is why I don't use the green.

[82_28]

We have a googly eyed Muslim army major who massacres a bunch of his comrades.

Another googly eyed Muslim getting tried as a "terrorist" in a civilian court for crimes committed on 9-11.

Another googly eyed man named Muhammed got executed AT 9:11 the other night.

And now Obama's googly eyed brother has spilled the beans about an abusive man, raised within the Islamic faith and just so happens to be Osababama's dad.

If you weren't trying to stir the pot or be racist, why the repetition of "googly eyed" at all? What non-racist meaning did it add?

Sweet jumpin' Jesus trampoline center. Sometimes you can't win to lose. I recognize that. I was PRECISELY pointing out the inherent and implicit racism that such actions play into the hands of. I thought at the time I was attempting to extrapolate the intended effect of an anti-muslim "psyop". Period.

I also thought most here may appreciate the irony of "googly eyed" dudes insofar as the clear and obvious MO of these recent developments. And BTW, I used to work in a liquor store in Denver many years ago and "googly eyed" was the term we all used to refer to the very far gone alkies. It's a term I've always used. And frankly, thinking about it, it only refers to crazy people when I employ the term.

Yes, I am still beating my wife.

If I haven't already made it crystal clear that I recognized that your explanation was sincere beyond question the first time you made it, please allow me to do so now. You are absolutely not being accused by me of any wittingly bad act of any kind. You never were. I should have made that clear in my post to the other thread. I say again that it's inexcusable that I didn't. But I didn't. As I said before, the egregious error in judgment was mine not yours. Because I knew the implications of the words I was using and I didn't believe that you did. I honestly didn't perceive how harshly what I wrote actually was. As one sometimes doesn't. I knew that what I meant was:


"You should be aware that the phrase "googly-eyed" in that context has racist connotations and they're very, very extreme. Roughly equivalent to the connotations of former Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz's career-ending quip that all the coloreds wanted was "tight pussy, lose shoes, and a warm place to shit."

IOW, it's associated with the unreconstructed pre-reconstruction racism of the Old South. I thought you'd want to know."

I wish I'd said that. It's what I meant. I thought, for god knows what reason, that my meaning was clear when I posted. That did not last any longer than it took for me to read it the second time 12 or so hours later.

I'm sorry. Very sorry. Please believe that there is no point related to your post that I'm standing by apart from:

"You should be aware that the phrase "googly-eyed" in that context has racist connotations and they're very, very extreme. Roughly equivalent to the connotations of former Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz's career-ending quip that all the coloreds wanted was "tight pussy, lose shoes, and a warm place to shit."

IOW, it's associated with the unreconstructed pre-reconstruction racism of the Old South. I thought you'd want to know."

Okay?

I was responding to Zap, not you c2w. Have no fear, as it were.

I looked and looked for a clip from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy that I wanted to add. But couldn't find the one I was looking for.

But this whole thread, this whole needless ordeal, reminds me exactly of this scene if anybody recalls reading or seeing it:

FORD:
I mean couldn’t help noticing, you know, the bodies.

CAPTAIN:
Bodies?

FORD:
All those dead telephone sanitizers and account executives, you know, in, in the hold.

CAPTAIN:
Oh! They’re not dead! Good Lord, No, no. They’re just frozen - they’re going to be revived.

ARTHUR:
You really mean you’ve got a hold full of frozen hairdressers?

CAPTAIN:
Oh yes. Millions of them! Hairdressers, tired T.V. producers, insurance salesmen, personnel officers…

NUMBER TWO:
Security guards…

NUMBER ONE:
Management consultants…

CAPTAIN:
Yes, well, you name it and we’ve got it!

NUMBER ONE:
We certainly have yes!

NUMBER TWO:
[Laughs]

CAPTAIN:
We’re going to colonise another planet!

Literally, seriously, let's lighten up on the way we treat one another on this board. I'm sorry I started it, but Jesus, lighten up. This place is my newspaper.

I'm probably not as smart as most here. Who knows. But c'mon. Forest for the trees.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Good one 82_28

[Percival]

c2w my comments were not directed at you specifically and I apologize if that is how it sounded. Over the last few weeks I have had my ass jumped for a few comments I made that were taken completely out of context and I have just seen an increase in hypersensitivity on this forum over the course of the last year or so. It hasnt always been like this so I wanted to point it out mostly because it is very frustrating for me.

I vented and it is over now, apologies to all who took offense, I said what I said thats the end of it. Carry on my good RI friends.

[compared2what?]

c2w my comments were not directed at you specifically and I apologize if that is how it sounded. Over the last few weeks I have had my ass jumped for a few comments I made that were taken completely out of context and I have just seen an increase in hypersensitivity on this forum over the course of the last year or so. It hasnt always been like this so I wanted to point it out mostly because it is very frustrating for me.

I vented and it is over now, apologies to all who took offense, I said what I said thats the end of it. Carry on my good RI friends.

Thank you. And more importantly: I hear that. I mean, about the personal frustration. FWIW, I'm pretty sure that most of the personal targeting actually is either the work of fairly obviously disruptive trolls or, more insidiously, conflicts that would have been resolved with less drama if their flames weren't being fanned by subtler and less perceptibly disruptive trolls. I hate having to pretend I don't see that happening, both when I'm the target and when other posters are, although I'm obviously a lot more likely to notice it in the former case than the latter. So I fly off the handle. Which I shouldn't, since -- among other things -- that's a victory for trolldom.

So please also accept my apologies to you. As well as to the you-plural who know who you-plural are.


ON EDIT: FUCK! I am a FUCKING IDIOT. Please stand by for a clarification.

[compared2what?]

Okay. I didn't mean trollery was happening on this thread specifically.

I meant something more like:

There are normal turf wars, and normal people-who-don't-like-other-people bitch-slappery outbreaks, of course. And there are trolls who are barely pretending not to be trolls, of course. But I also do notice that there are a very small number of posters who consistently make small and seemingly innocent remarks that very effectively reinforce some past negative association between a specific poster and a specific community grievance, until they've touched enough sore spots among the innocent to just sit back and watch the dominoes fall by themselves.

Thinking about that in those terms just leads to paranoia. So there's really no point at all in bearing any part of in mind, per se. Ultimately, it always comes down to one, very simple principle, which is that good conduct is not just the best defense, it's also the only defense. Because if your conduct actually is habitually either good or in-good-faith, there's really not much anyone else can do to fuck with you. You can only fuck with yourself either by forgetting or getting confused about your own natural good impulses. I did that here, and I should know better, because I knew what button was being pushed, quite possibly with no malicious intent of any kind on anybody's part. I just ignored the part of myself that knew it. Because that and other buttons get pushed here more often than innocence on everybody's part can entirely explain, which irks me in itself, and also leaves me primed to react badly sooner or later.

Anyway. Like I said, there's no point in dwelling, really. Because there's really no certain way of distinguishing the malicious actors from people who are just acting naturally, albeit possibly in a way that they may have been primed to do without recognizing it as that. So it's the same as anything else in life. Have standards, be comfortable with them, and abide happily. Which is exactly what you should do anyway, for your own sake. So it's all good, in the end.

[elfismiles]

Is it OK to use black emojis and gifs?- BBC News

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cyq6fTYxztc

Published on Aug 15, 2017

It's digital blackface, according to writer Victoria Princewill. See if her arguments change your emoji habits.
Warning: This video contains historical footage of blackface minstrel shows which you may find offensive.

[mentalgongfu2]

Is it OK to use black emojis and gifs?

-BBC lady

Yes. Yes it is.
Context matters of course, but this "cultural appropriation" outcry has gone too far.

"Black people are not here for other people's entertainment," she says, following a montage of popular gif images that includes Kevin Hart (comedian/actor/entertainer), Michael Jackson (musician/entertainer), Donald Glover (actor/musician/entertainer)....