rigorousintuition.ca

http://www.hulu.com/watch/16417/saturda ... s-gardener

wtf?

Have folks here gotten THAT hypersensitive?

Perhaps IPs help identify the alleged "trolls" but ...

With that thread I had no intent on stirring up controversy. Though it does appear elfismiles, that you are "taking my side". I did PM Jeff to clarify. I love this board to death and don't wanna upset a soul.

That said, for those who have their doubts, the idea for the the thread began after listening to an NPR story AFTER a conversation I was having with some friends, where we were remarking on the aspects of all this "crazy Muslim" shit going round and noting the odd similarities that play into the hands that would have all those neither rigorous or intuitive believe about the fake hatred that makes war possible. (run on sentence there, sorry)

I should have clarified. But I believe it is "they", the terrorism running narrative managers, who have created and are tuning this Muslim bogeyman thing to their full potential. That is what I was attempting to point out. I apologize for offending anyone.

Have folks here gotten THAT hypersensitive?

Yes. And the place now sucks because of it.

Since this seems to be one of those threads that could quickly turn into a meta hurricane that will be difficult to ignore, could someone explain to me WTF this is about?

I have no idea.

I subscribe to the notion that when one starts a thread, one should actually explain why one is starting a thread.

I don't know if Jeff and others wanna take this up again, as the thread was locked. But it was a thread I started and was deemed offensive by some.

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... hp?t=25873

I don't get it.

Most likely the thread title, the term "googly eyes" and C2W dropping the "S" bomb combined to cause concern. That said, I don't suspect Jeff as he'll normally give a head's up as to reason.

Most likely another Mod and now it's up for discussion in the Mods discussion area.

Or not...

ETA- some might have given the poster a chance to edit if the offense was unintended .Not everyone is completely tuned into Gollywogisms.

Well, you see:

The darky icon itself—googly-eyed, with inky skin; exaggerated white, pink or red lips; and bright, white teeth -

I'd have locked for "big lipped" or "nappy headed" as well, just so's you know.

For whatever it's worth, I didn't know googly-eyed had that meaning. Until now I've only heard it to mean "in love," as in, "they're googly eyed about each other."

82_28 wrote:With that thread I had no intent on stirring up controversy. Though it does appear elfismiles, that you are "taking my side". I did PM Jeff to clarify. I love this board to death and don't wanna upset a soul.

That said, for those who have their doubts, the idea for the the thread began after listening to an NPR story AFTER a conversation I was having with some friends, where we were remarking on the aspects of all this "crazy Muslim" shit going round and noting the odd similarities that play into the hands that would have all those neither rigorous or intuitive believe about the fake hatred that makes war possible. (run on sentence there, sorry)

I should have clarified. But I believe it is "they", the terrorism running narrative managers, who have created and are tuning this Muslim bogeyman thing to their full potential. That is what I was attempting to point out. I apologize for offending anyone.

Um...Please let me eat shit 82_28. I was the one who should have clarified. And my failure to do so was more insensitive than yours was by a factor of about gazillion. Because obviously, I knew beyond doubt that there were words and an image in my post that belonged to a specific lexicon of unambiguously inflammatory and hateful idiom, with the explicit aim of calling attention to your use of a word from the same lexicon. And I'm a totally irredeemable asoul (h/t yathrib) for not having either taken the time to:

(a) make it plain that the reason I was pointing that out was because I didn't think you fully knew that word for what it was, and not because I thought that you did; or

(b) said what I had to say neutrally and without unnecessary and uncalled for personal implications.

The only reason I didn't do the latter wasn't in fact what you could really call a reason, since it wasn't really rational. Owing to a sheer quirk in linear time, I wasn't aware of how strongly my response to you was informed by the didn't-you-fucking-hear-what-I-just-neutrally-fucking-said sense of grievance and frustration that I didn't, in the moment, actually have any consciously realized idea I was feeling. But chance being a fine thing, I happened to read your OP pretty much immediately after making the same point in more generally neutral and less provocative terms here. Please accept my sincerest apologies for not having kept more responsibly on top of which stimuli of what kind I was responding to and what direction they were coming from. Because I really regret that I wasn't.

On the other hand, by way of loose analogy, that does at least serve as yet another reminder to me of what a blessing it is for the entire world that I don't drive. Because I'd have racked up more kills than a video game by now if I did. Eek. I don't even like to think about it. It's not funny cause it's true.

Remorsefully yours,

c2w

So ya mean this thread is not about putting googly eyes on plants?

elfismiles wrote:wtf?

Have folks here gotten THAT hypersensitive?

Perhaps IPs help identify the alleged "trolls" but ...

You might have considered whether there was anything to recommend asking me the first question by itself and without going on to answer it yourself with the second one. Because it's less conducive to your basic, common and garden-variety inadvertent and hyper-emotionally determined rush to judgment when you do it that way, imo.

JackRiddler wrote:For whatever it's worth, I didn't know googly-eyed had that meaning. Until now I've only heard it to mean "in love," as in, "they're googly eyed about each other."

Again, I do take questions. I also admit errors. So if you'd happened on the thread earlier, and your unfamiliarity with the usage to which I was referring had left you in a state of confusion too great to be assuaged by dint of search terms such as "blackface" and "googly eyed" or "minstrel show" and "googly eyed" or whatever, you would have had nothing to lose by asking me wtf I was talking about and why I had posted a picture of Al Jolson.

NB

So ya mean this thread is not about putting googly eyes on plants?

Anymore, I think it's about putting chia seeds on earthenware Obama busts. You guys have seen this right? Is it a company just getting into the waning Obama fever for the buck, is it just something unbelievably stupid with an eye to retro collectors of the future or is it the wholesale cheapening of the "office of the presidency" and representative government in general? Possibly all three I suppose. And it has everything to do with plants as well. Chia plants! Yay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDphoZk6RzE

BTW c2w, don't worry about it. I know where my heart sits and from the posts over time you've written, the same goes for you. Don't eat shit at all. Not perturbed in the least. Just wanted to clarify is all.