Thursday, December 10, 2009

Transcending Race?

Not at the New York Times, where they've published a holiday gift guide especially for people of color.

Gee I wonder how the MSM would react if anyone, anywhere in America published a "holiday shopping guide for white folks?" How long before Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would come out of hiding and cry racism all over the airwaves?

Is it any wonder this country can't get beyond race when we're constantly, willfully dividing ourselves along racial lines?

H/T to Jeff

16 comments:

Chris Slavens said...

The media's different treatment of whites and blacks is astounding. Only this weekend, articles told of the black community criticizing Tiger Woods for lacking cultural pride, because he prefers white women. Imagine if the white community was criticizing a white man for dating black women!

Weer'd Beard said...

What, no top-10 White-hating churches and secular groups to attend? How can a person-of-color get their culturally-accepted hate-on?

mikeb302000 said...

Once I heard that until they achieve gender balance in the workplace it's acceptable to favor females over males. Maybe this is the same thing.

DirtCrashr said...

Socialists achieved "gender balance" already, and we have achieved gender-(im)balance in the academic workplace - so maybe now bigotry is the same thing and OK? Good luck with that and Merry Christmas!

Linoge said...

And you believe everything you hear, do you not, MikeB302000? Or, at least, everything that fits your particular breed of bigotry...

At any rate, supposedly poor, downtrodden, misbegotten, misunderstood, marginalized minorities just cannot seem to understand why pepole like me (people whose ancestors belonged to one such minority, mind you) simply cannot get themselves worked up about "race equality"... well, buckos, when your race is doing its damnest to separate and distinguish itself from mine (whatever mine or yours may be), far be it for me to complain when your efforts actually bear fruit.

Be careful what you ask for...

mikeb302000 said...

I think Linoge is giving us a new definition of troll. Someone should alert Sebastian who wrote a pretty good post about all the different types.

What Linoge does is link back to himself when referencing others. Maybe that's just poor blogging etiquette, though. And let's not forget the hypocrisy of doing that while viciously attacking others for any and all infractions if they happen to disagree with him.

What say you, Mike W.? I know you'll support him all the way, but I'd like to hear how you do it. The reason I know you support him is because that's what you do, you support other pro-gun folks whether they're right or wrong. In some cases I suspect you know they've said or done something wrong but you support them anyway. What do you call that, loyalty? I call it something else.

Mike W. said...

What do you call your support of a vile, despicable creature like Laci who continually calls for an entire group of Americans to be murdered?

Is that blind loyalty MikeB? I say it makes you just as vile as her

And MikeB, I AM right. You are wrong. This is demonstrated with actual evidence. Linoge is only pointing you out as a bigot, which you quite clearly are. That's not trolling.

Alex said...

It's not a gift guide for people of color; it's a gift guide of things which were created by people of color.

Linoge said...

So let me get this straight, MikeB302000, just for the record.

Reposting your very own words and pointing them out for the world to see is a "vicious attack"?

Being so kind as giving people a history of your own particular breed of bigotry, ignorance, incompetence, and even criminal history is "poor blogging etiquette"?

Why are you so embarrassed by your own words? Why do you not want to take ownership of them? Why do you not want them publicized? Why do you want them hidden?

They are your words, Mikey. You said them. I just preseved them for posterity's sake. Why are you so against that?

Speaking of etiquette though, as Mike W. pointed out, do you consider it "good" etiquette to wholly, enthusiastically, and vociferously support a hateful, intolerant, totalitarianistic, murderous sociopath? Do you consider it "good" etiquette to cast baseless aspersions at law-abiding citizens simply because people with a same piece of plastic as them have committed a crime? Do you consider it "good" etiquette to make up specious statistics out of whole cloth, and pass them off as sufficient reason to abridge every American citizen's rights? Do you consider it "good" etiquette to delete comments from your webpage that attack you, but allow comments from your supporters that attack pro-rights advocates?

That glass house you are living in is in shards about your feet by now...

mikeb302000 said...

No Linoge, Reposting my words and pointing them out for the world to see is not a "vicious attack." I never said that. I said you attack viciously by dedicating so much time to personally attacking me and spicing it up with so many insulting names.

No Linoge "Being so kind as giving people a history of your own particular breed of bigotry, ignorance, incompetence, and even criminal history is not "poor blogging etiquette."" The poor etiquette is deleting all links back to my blog and hooking back to your own instead.

"They are your words, Mikey. You said them. I just preseved them for posterity's sake. Why are you so against that?" That's bullshit too Linoge. You didn't preserve anything. All my posts are on my blog for all to see.

"do you consider it "good" etiquette to wholly, enthusiastically, and vociferously support a hateful, intolerant, totalitarianistic, murderous sociopath?" This is an example of your out-of-control exaggerating. I don't think Laci is a "murderous sociopath," if that whom you're referring to. And I don't "wholly, enthusiastically, and vociferously support" anyone.

And finally, you asked Do you consider it "good" etiquette to delete comments from your webpage that attack you, but allow comments from your supporters that attack pro-rights advocates? I've never done that. You know very well why I delete some comments.

Linoge said...

Reposting my words and pointing them out for the world to see is not a "vicious attack." I never said that.

No, you did not expressly say those exact words, but you intentionally and directly implied it, in many separate occasions, on many separate weblogs at this point.

I said you attack viciously by dedicating so much time to personally attacking me and spicing it up with so many insulting names.

Liar. You never said that either. After all, the entire comment thread is available above for you to read - point out where you said exactly that.

The poor etiquette is deleting all links back to my blog and hooking back to your own instead.

Liar. I do not delete all links back to your weblog. I cannot delete all links back to your weblog - by way of an example, you will note that the links contained within your username here and over at The View From Northern Idaho are still retained.

Furthermore, please ellucidate how deleting the links of known spammers and trolls is "poor etiquette"? My weblogging system handles somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 spam comments and trackbacks in the course of a day - is it "poor etiquette" that those comments never see the light of day? Likewise, as Breda found out in very short order, your comments are nothing more than spam designed to generate hits for your weblog. I am not sorry to admit this, but I do not support you, and I do not support your weblog, and I refuse to allow for my weblog to be used as a billboard for yours. Get over it already - it is my paid-for webspace, and you are more than welcome to let the door slam you in your ass on the way out if you do not like the rules I have imposed for it.

At any rate, the hypocrisy you are displaying by complaining about me linking back to my weblog is flat-out astounding, given that you only comment as an excuse to link back to yours.

You didn't preserve anything.

Liar. You see, the definition of "preserve" is "keep or maintain in unaltered condition; cause to remain or last; keep in safety and protect from harm, decay, loss, or destruction". I have, in fact, kept and maintaned certain comments and posts you have written in their unaltered condition. I have caused them to remain or last so long as my own weblog does. I have kept them in safety and protected them from harm, decay, loss, or destruction.

As such, I have preserved your words for the world to see. I will ask again - why are you so against that? Why are you so ashamed of your words? Why do you not want them trumpeted to the mountains and the seas? What are you hiding?

This is an example of your out-of-control exaggerating.

Liar. Laci has expressly, repeatedly, and clearly stated, in those exact words, that she would like to murder all "gun nuts", that she would like all "gun nuts" to commit suicide, that she would like all "gun nuts" to kill each other. If you ever wanted an example of "hateful", "intolerant", "murderous", or "sociopathic", that would pretty much be it. Just imagine if she had said those kinds of things about Jews. As for the nature of totalitarianism, Laci has made it quite clear that she views anyone who disagrees with her narrow, debunked, and disproven understanding of the Second Amendment to be a "gun nut", and thus someone who must be silenced - wanting to silence your opposition by force is, again, a prime example of totalitarianistic tendencies.

You really do not understand the English language, do you?

[break due to character count]

Linoge said...

[continued]

I don't think Laci is a "murderous sociopath,"

Well, that speaks volumes as to the nature of your character, backbone, and ethics... or lack thereof.

And I don't "wholly, enthusiastically, and vociferously support" anyone.

Liar. You consistently use the words "wonderful", "great", "pleasure", "right with me", and so forth, when talking about Laci. That is enthusiastic support. And the frequency and repeated nature of it makes it vociferous. And, finally, you still have not disagreed with Laci yet, even with her wontonly murderous tendencies, which makes your support of her whole.

You really, really do not understand the English language, do you?

I've never done that. You know very well why I delete some comments.

Liar. And that may be the worst whopper you have written yet. Your commenting policy very clearly indicates that personal attacks against you will not be tolerated. Additionally, Weer'd, Thirdpower, Bob S., and Mike W. all have documented comments that you deleted, claiming "personal attacks" against you. Likewise, you continue to allow comments from Laci, MudRake, and others that personally attack pro-rights commenters on your weblog.

That, knave, makes you a liar... and a liar six times over in the course of a single comment. Did you think I would not remember the truth? Did you think I would not call you on your lies? Or, worst of them all, do you actually not see the lies in your words?

And just to wind this all down to a close, pointing out that you are a lying bigot who wants to strip the rights away from law-abiding Americans based on nothing more than his own personal phobias is not "spicing it up with so many insulting names". It is pointing out a descriptive statement of fact - a statement you have backed up, with your own words over the course of months that you have been spewing forth your anti-rights nonsense. Do not blame the messenger that the shoe on your foot actually fits, and do, please, stop with the "wounded martyr" schtick now that people have figured you out for what you are - it is getting really tiresome.

mikeb302000 said...

Linoge, You are the best. I acquiesce to your superior argumentation, knowledge of english and persistence. It's a pleasure reading you. I disagree with you on each and every point, but your presentation is just fantastic. What the others do in a sloppy and awkward way, you make into an art form.

Please believe me, I'm quite serious about this.

Linoge said...

I know you are unfamiliar with the concept, MikeB302000, but all I am doing is debating. I am making a statement, and then using facts, figures, statistics, and reality to show you that that particular fact is true.

In this case is, the fact is that you lie through your teeth, repeatedly, and without any particular reason other than to continue to act the wounded martyr. That you "disagree" with facts (facts which, again, include your very own words) just goes to prove how much of an inveterate liar you are, and how useless any debate or conversation with you is.

Or perhaps these words, read yesterday, might better explain what I do, and how I do it:

“‘We never make assertions, Miss Taggart,’ said Hugh Akston. ‘That is the moral crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell – we show. We do not claim – we prove.’”

Now go away. The adults are talking.

mikeb302000 said...

I give up, Linoge. You win already. The clincher was Uncle's line at the end there.

Mike W. said...

It's not like you present a challenge MikeB. You are a very simple-minded bigot who does no more than repeat the same tripe over and over again.

having a "debate" with you is like putting up a standard target 2 feet from the muzzle and seeing if I can hit it. I'm gonna punch holes in that sucker all day long without fail, and it's boring and effortless.