--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > (snip) > > Share was juxtaposing the obvious level of horror of the > > incidents with language that got its message through to > > anyone who was not trying to use and absurd level of > > literal-mindedness for an unfriendly agenda. (Unfriendly > > may or may not involve rupturing.) > > The context here was Share's recommendation to Indian women > that they wear punjabis rather than saris, because the former > "are practical, meaning one could still flee or er apply > one's knee to a feller's nether regions if he got too frisky." > > She went on to elaborate on the situation in India: > > "From recent news reports there seems to be a lot of hyper > frisky fellers there." > > Sadly for Curtis, when Ann found this language insensitive, > Share indignantly defended herself by describing this > little quip about murderous rapists (including of toddlers) > as "a lame joke." > > Ooooopsie. > > Or, for Curtis, maybe not so sad. Nothing wrong with having > a chuckle at the exploits of these rapists, eh, Curtis? Even > if the joke *was* just a wee bit lame, it conveyed the > "obvious level of horror" of what they did just fine, as long > as you didn't take it literally. Come on, people, lighten up! > > I mean, if you can't joke about rape, what *can* you joke > about?
And if she had labeled it "ironic" like Robin the wolves would have retreated into the forest? Just because she called it a "joke" doesn't mean it was meant to be funny. She was expressing it using absurdly light-hearted language. Its intent was obvious to me. But not to you two. Because your intent was to slam her. Yeah, Share is pro rape and was trying to show how funny the topic of baby raping and child killing is. That makes much more sense and I'm glad you are on the job. >
