--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@...> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > > > > > ME:> > So no Ann, it is not hypocritical to make fun of religious ideas and > > still be against racist remarks. They are not the same. > > > > > ANN> Ahhh, but the agenda behind, the motivation, the hatred, the ignorance > > and the anger can be. Absolutely. And THAT is what I'm talkin' about. > > > > > > > This is the heart of it. I am not criticizing Ravi for what I am imagining > > are his feelings as you are about me. I am criticizing the content of his > > ideas. I couldn't care less what he feels about black people, I can't do > > anything about that. But I can challenge ideas he presents about them that > > I see as racist. > > Absolutely, you should bring up the subject of what you may recognize as > hateful or bigoted or stereotypically simplistic and off-base. I think it is > our responsibility to do this, especially to friends who we are more likely > to have influence on by talking about it. But this is also why others have > gotten into you a little for the song lyrics and what they actually mean or > why you would direct them at someone if, in fact, you did.>
Direct them AT someone? WTF? To what end? I was pointing out the most provocative lyrics to Emily for discussion. How that could get twisted into some kind of demented act is beyond me. Getting into me a little for song lyrics of another person? WTF2? < My opinion on this is marginal and I am not sure exactly what those lyrics are indicating and I don't actually believe your motives were suspect when you directed Emily's attention to them nor do I believe, for one second, that you support rape, either by an individual or a group.> Pretty low bar, but OK. > > > > It is the same with my satire on religion. I am not addressing what people > > feel about religion. That is their business. I am addressing what > > religions claim. I do not consider religious ideas as protected ones. > > This is a whhhoooole 'nother subject and a big one because it gets into > ideologies, beliefs that can be deeper than whether a song is talking about > rape or about mutual pleasure and it is apparent from what you have written > and how I have responded in the past to your religious subject posts that we > come from two distinct places on this. But I agree that religious ideas are > not 'protected' but what is? Any subject is open to ridicule, humour, parody. > Nothing is sacred when it comes to being satirized or derided.> And yet you equate this with what Ravi was doing so you really don't understand the important distinctions between criticizing ideas and directing overgeneralized statements toward actual people. > > > It doesn't matter in archeology what the discoverer feels about an > > artifact. He has to make his case on the content of the ideas. > > I am not sure where this sentence falls into the discussion, but, okay.> I know you don't understand, that is my point. Theories are presented by people in all fields. When they do it in some contexts, people are free to say "that is a ridiculous idea for these reasons." Only with religious ideas (and sometimes politics) do we conflate the idea and the person. You are saying what I did with ideas is the same as what Ravi is doing with people. It is not. > > > > You seem unable in discussion to make this distinction between what is > > going on inside your imagination (Curtis is feeling hate and anger while > > writing) and WHAT I am actually saying. > > > > > Similarly, you give a pass on Ravi painting a picture of a whole race of > > people as having babies for food stamps while the shiftless men are in > > jail because you give more weight to what you IMAGINE is going on inside > > his feelings. So you can ignore WHAT he says because of how you feel about > > him. > > > > When it comes to racist ideas what counts to me is WHAT is said. So I > > challenged WHAT he said as an over-generalization about a race. I asked him > > to consider what percentage he believes fit his characterization. I am not > > attacking his feelings. > > Well, you can attack his feelings all you want and at the same time discuss > where they are coming from as well.> I don't care about what his feelings are about anything. I cared enough about what he said to mention it and connect it with the ideology of Fox news. I wanted to see if Judy or Raunchy would stand up, but of course they did not because it was adorable L'll Ravi making a racist slur and then pretending he was doing "stand-up". Before admitting that yes he really is a racist but everyone is so it doesn't matter. < I think by questioning someone's statements you are questioning their beliefs which in turn is questioning them as individuals.> Then every discussion of ideas for you is a personal discussion and any attack on the validity of an idea is a personal one for you. Even an attack on ideas that you do not personally hold, but which you get offended on behalf of other people who might hold them. That makes a discussion of ideas impossible and everything descends into a personal squabble. You can attack atheism all day long and it will never be an attack on me personally unless you make it that. You can say atheism is the stupidest idea in all history and all you will hear from me are reasons that I believe otherwise. I will NEVER take it personally that you don't share a belief I hold. I would only see it as an opportunity to express my POV on the IDEA. < You can't really isolate one out from the other, it comes as a package. It's just the way it is.> No, YOU can't and that is the way it is for YOU. The whole system of philosophical discussions is based on people being able to do just that. In most academic circles it is a given. The other end of the spectrum is people who take any discussion of ideas they don't share personally. It does not lead to discussion. > > > > > When I write something satirical about religion, you could go after the > > ideas and make a case for a different POV. > > > > But you don't. What you do is imagine what I am feeling and then try to > > characterize me as expression emotions you are imagining I am having. > > See above for why I disagree with this assertion of yours. Backatchya > > > > You can't discuss ideas without going after me as a person, which is why we > > have so few interactions here. > > I actually really disagree with you here. It may end up feeling like I am > going after your innate personhood but remember what we believe or subscribe > to in our lives is often so closely adhered to our sense of self and the very > fabric of what we feel makes us up as human beings that it becomes difficult > to separate out when someone else questions our actions/writings/viewpoints. > I think you may be having that difficulty with me.> I think you are unaware of how many times your subtext is a personal insult. It is a distinctive passive aggressive aspect of your posts. You have a habit of mentioning something as a possibility then retracting it as if that erases the insinuation. As you did with the absurd concept that I was directing a rape lyric AT someone for nefarious purposes in a discussion about music. > > Let me just say this as a general overview: I don't care what you or anyone > else believes or feels about Christ, the song or TM. But what I can object to > is how they talk about some of these things or use them to attack or > horrify/shock.> You are projecting your own values onto my intentions. I write to delight others who see the world as I do. I am not in control of or in charge of everyone else who does not, that is their business. < I can be offended by what I feel may be crossing the line or in bad taste (very subjective, both of these things) or just plain ignorant.> And sometimes you just give a pass like for Ravi, I mean every time. < I may or may not say so at the time. Often when we bring these kinds of objections up we are met with ugly defensiveness that closes any door to meaningful discussion.> Because you are unaware of how personally insulting your posts are perhaps? <That is not the purpose I see of this forum. I like the chance to discuss differing outlooks and opinions but so much of it here seems to go down the toilet bowl of reaction and negativity based on people taking things as personal attacks when all the other guy wants to do is discuss the differences in viewpoint.> I don't see you interacting this way at all here. < I could have a very strong opinion about something and bring it to the attention of the writer but it is because I want to discuss the subject. Unfortunately, some here either refuse to discuss things at all or take the entire subject or use another subject altogether to berate someone. Example: Nabby attempting to use his supposed disdain of your music as a weapon against you or Steve taking Ravi's past relationship and trying to harpoon him with it. > Perhaps Steve was just trying to open up a discussion in the way you do? > > Now, have you felt personally attacked in this post of mine? I certainly hope > not. If so, I will have to really examine my writing style.> No this is the version of you that comes out after weathering the initial hidden barb, passive aggressive personal digs you sprinkle in. So you show up here completely reasonable and giving lip-service to the ideal of not making discussions personal. Now if you walk the talk it will do as you say, promote more discussions. But as long as you equate ridiculing ideas with ridiculing the people who hold them, the discussions will have a short fuse of interest for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I figured you'd get back to me so I guess I have to keep going with this. > > > I have snipped a bunch of the older stuff so we don't clog up the works. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula > > > > > > <chivukula.ravi@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hilarious stuff Curtis - ever ready for your hypocritical, > > > > > > > malicious, > > > > > > > devious spin aren't you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First off it was should have been quite clear that I was allowing > > > > > > > freedom > > > > > > > for artistic expression yet not supporting it as a prescription, > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > supporting the incredible lengths you go to support derogatory > > > > > > > references> to women and gang-rape. > > > > > > > > > > > > What part of the song represents a derogatory reference to woman > > > > > > and gang rape to you Ravi? Show me one line to support that > > > > > > interpretation. Even my first graders know that they have to > > > > > > support their POV with a detail from the text. Let's see if you > > > > > > can clear the first grade level bar for justifying your POV about > > > > > > the song. > > > > > > > > > > > > You have been mislead by watching Raunchy fly off the handle with > > > > > > her projections onto the characters in the lyrics haven't you? You > > > > > > really don't have anything in the actual words of the song to > > > > > > support this absurd accusation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes you spin me as an Indian Sean Hannity and not an > > > > > > > artist - an > > > > > > > Indian stand up?> > > > > > > > > > > > > Well for one thing stand-up makes the audience laugh. If you were > > > > > > going for laughter doing schtick on what a republican asshole would > > > > > > say about black people you lacked a set-up as a minimum. > > > > > > > > > > > > So is that what you are claiming about your observations about > > > > > > black people and their food stamp lov'n, baby factory ways? Was it > > > > > > a joke? > > > > > > > > > > Oh dear, I was hoping to be able to bypass this entire conversation > > > > > but it appears I need to mention just one teeny weeny reference to > > > > > your Christ spiels, be they Christmas or Easter versions. If you > > > > > want, we could start quoting and analyzing those. I think, at the > > > > > time anyway, you thought they were 'jokes', funny, creative and also > > > > > attractive to the silent lurkers/friends of yours who read FFL to see > > > > > your written gags because they are so original and hilarious. > > > > > Although I was not entirely on board with Ravi's 'observations' of > > > > > the black population in America I am not sure YOU are the one to > > > > > start pointing fingers with regard to someone else denigrating entire > > > > > populations when you appear to feel so much satisfaction at dishing > > > > > it out about Jesus, the Virgin Mary and God, for that matter. Whether > > > > > we are talking about interpreting song lyrics, discussing one's > > > > > opinions on a culture or another's 'stand up' routine about one of > > > > > the 'Holier Families' in Christian belief structure it can all come > > > > > down to a serious case of subjectivity. Just don't be a hypocrite, > > > > > that's all I'm sayin'. > > > > > > > > So you are equating my mocking beliefs in mythologies with racist > > > > comments about a group of actual people who are born into a race? You > > > > seriously can't make this distinction between ideas and people? > > > > > > Well, first of all the entire subject of mythology or not is not a > > > foregone conclusion so don't start this whole thing off asserting the the > > > entire Christ story is one big myth. If this is the premise of why you > > > don't like what I wrote then this is a bad start. > > > > > > > > Maybe this will help: > > > > > > > > Magic Jesus: Not real. Mary not a virgin. These ideas are myths and a > > > > product of creative writing not unlike my own. > > > > > > Oh, okay so you are starting with this premise and based on how and what > > > you just wrote your last couple of sentences I am not sure you are open > > > to a discussion. It is not a good omen for a dialogue between two people > > > who would otherwise like to, perhaps, exchange ideas. > > > > > > > > Being born black: very real. They can't wake up one day and say "being > > > > black is bullshit, I am not going to buy into that belief anymore and > > > > just be white now so I can get all the perks society offers them." > > > > > > Reeeeaaalllyy. I didn't realize once you were black your skin remained > > > that colour. I mean, look at Michael Jackson (not our MJ). Just pulling > > > your chain, sorry. > > > > > > > > And what does not being "entirely on board with Ravi's 'observations' > > > > of the black population in America" mean?" Were you a little on board > > > > with characterizing a whole population of real people this way? > > > > > > Curtis, you are suddenly so self righteous I just can't seem to keep a > > > straight face or get serious about this post. I had INTENDED to get > > > serious but so far you are sort of cracking me up. I know you THINK you > > > are the resident expert of black people because you live in the south but > > > come oooonnnn. > > > > > > > > My original comment linked his views with Sean Hannity who also > > > > promotes these images of black people having babies for more food > > > > stamps. It is a right wing political agenda that demonizes the poor > > > > and black people and has serious policy implications for actual > > > > families. > > > > > > Oh Curtis. > > > > > > > > So no Ann, it is not hypocritical to make fun of religious ideas and > > > > still be against racist remarks. They are not the same. > > > > > > Ahhh, but the agenda behind, the motivation, the hatred, the ignorance > > > and the anger can be. Absolutely. And THAT is what I'm talkin' about. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > < Why not allow for my artistic, provocative expression > > > > > > > similar to how you defend artistic expressions of gang-rape and > > > > > > > derogatory> objectification of women?> > > > > > > > > > > > > You are too confused about too many things here to straighten > > > > > > anything out. But again I give you the challenge to defend your > > > > > > accusations about the purpose and meaning of the song from actual > > > > > > words FROM the song. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why did your hypocritical ass not defend my attack on Indians? > > > > > > > It's > > > > > > > probably not in line with your racist, Hindu-bashing White ass is > > > > > > > it?> > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would I care how you think about Indians? I am not > > > > > > professionally preserving Indian culture, I am preserving an aspect > > > > > > of black culture. So your idiotic statements about black people > > > > > > are more interesting to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Remember Curtis baby - I can play your game better than you.> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ravi you haven't even cleared the bar of coherence, or the first > > > > > > grade level of supporting your POV about a work of fiction with > > > > > > examples from the text. Let's start there. > > > > > >
