November 30, 2006
Krauthammer: Borat Film Mocks Anti-Semitism In All The Wrong Places
— Ace Interesting: Borat goes searching for anti-semitism in America. Hasn't he heard he can see a lot more of it, without the travel costs, in England or France?
— Ace Interesting: Borat goes searching for anti-semitism in America. Hasn't he heard he can see a lot more of it, without the travel costs, in England or France?
With anti-Semitism reemerging in Europe and rampant in the Islamic world; with Iran acquiring the ultimate weapon of genocide and proclaiming its intention to wipe out the world's largest Jewish community (Israel); with America and, in particular, its Christian evangelicals the only remaining Gentile constituency anywhere willing to defend that besieged Jewish outpost -- is the American heartland really the locus of anti-Semitism? Is this the one place to go to find it?In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez says that the "descendants of the same ones that crucified Christ" have "taken possession of all the wealth in the world." Just this month, Tehran hosted an international festival of Holocaust cartoons featuring enough hooked noses and horns to give Goebbels a posthumous smile. Throughout the Islamic world, newspapers and television, schoolbooks and sermons are filled with the most vile anti-Semitism.
Baron Cohen could easily have found what he seeks closer to home. He is, after all, from Europe, where synagogues are torched and cemeteries desecrated in a revival of anti-Semitism -- not "indifference" to but active -- unseen since the Holocaust. Where a Jew is singled out for torture and death by French-African thugs. Where a leading Norwegian intellectual -- et tu, Norway? -- mocks "God's Chosen People" ("We laugh at this people's capriciousness and weep at its misdeeds") and calls for the destruction of Israel, the "state founded . . . on the ruins of an archaic national and warlike religion."
Yet, amid this gathering darkness, an alarming number of liberal Jews are seized with the notion that the real threat lurks deep in the hearts of American Protestants, most specifically Southern evangelicals. Some fear that their children are going to be converted; others, that below the surface lies a pogrom waiting to happen; still others, that the evangelicals will take power in Washington and enact their own sharia law.
This is all quite crazy. America is the most welcoming, religiously tolerant, philo-Semitic country in the world. No nation since Cyrus the Great's Persia has done more for the Jews. And its reward is to be exposed as latently anti-Semitic by an itinerant Jew looking for laughs and, he solemnly assures us, for the path to the Holocaust?
...
It is very hard to be a Jew today, particularly in Baron Cohen's Europe, where Jew-baiting is once again becoming acceptable. But it is a sign of the disorientation of a distressed and confused people that we should find it so difficult to distinguish our friends from our enemies.
I suppose Cohen goes to America for the anti-semitism because, were he to expose it in Britain, he wouldn't be popular or beloved. He'd be reviled for exposing what his audience really believes.
Thanks to yls.
Posted by: Ace at
03:29 PM
| Comments (93)
Post contains 500 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I must say, Borat is funnier than the first time he did his act back when his name was Andy Kaufmann.
But he's an idiot if he thinks rural America is where the next Holocaust will come from. An absolute simple-minded idiot.
Unless that's part of his act, too.
But he's an idiot if he thinks rural America is where the next Holocaust will come from. An absolute simple-minded idiot.
Unless that's part of his act, too.
Posted by: adam h at November 30, 2006 03:34 PM (erRvx)
2
Um, Baron Cohen did his schtick in Britain for years. He didn't come to America until he was too famous to pull it off there anymore.
Posted by: seattle slough at November 30, 2006 03:37 PM (H5l9d)
3
Oh, right, so there was no way that he could have seen an act involving a comdeian pretending to be an innocent foreigner saying in approriate things and getting away with it, ever, in the last 25 years. Oops.
I am not saying he ripped it off...I am saying that it's been done by others. FWIW, I think Cohen is funnier. Thanks for being contentious, though.
I am not saying he ripped it off...I am saying that it's been done by others. FWIW, I think Cohen is funnier. Thanks for being contentious, though.
Posted by: adam h at November 30, 2006 03:44 PM (erRvx)
4
Sorry for the confusion adam h. I was responding to the original post.
Essentially I was responding to Kruthammer, but also to Ace for agreeing and reposting it.
I was not suggesting that Baron Cohen didn't know about Andy Kaufman because he lived in Europe. I am suggesting that Krauthammer's ridiculous idea that Baron Cohen should aim his anti-anti-semetic sights on his homeland of Europe can be answered as such: He already did. In England anyway.
And as far as Krauthammer's (and ostensibly Ace's) wish that Baron Cohen set his sight on France: I would assume he doesn't speak French well enough to do it with a somewhat convincing and phony Khazakh accent.
FWIW, if I was responding to you, I probably would have put your name in the top of my post.
Cheers.
Essentially I was responding to Kruthammer, but also to Ace for agreeing and reposting it.
I was not suggesting that Baron Cohen didn't know about Andy Kaufman because he lived in Europe. I am suggesting that Krauthammer's ridiculous idea that Baron Cohen should aim his anti-anti-semetic sights on his homeland of Europe can be answered as such: He already did. In England anyway.
And as far as Krauthammer's (and ostensibly Ace's) wish that Baron Cohen set his sight on France: I would assume he doesn't speak French well enough to do it with a somewhat convincing and phony Khazakh accent.
FWIW, if I was responding to you, I probably would have put your name in the top of my post.
Cheers.
Posted by: seattle slough at November 30, 2006 04:00 PM (H5l9d)
5
"Baron Cohen did his schtick in Britain for years"
Specifically with Borat's Jew-baiting? I've seen episodes of the British/original "Ali G Show," and I know he did the *character* Borat, but I don't remember the "Throw the Jew Down the Well" shtick being such a big part of those segments.
I could be wrong. I'm not contradicting you just to start an argument - that's not how I roll, seattle.
Specifically with Borat's Jew-baiting? I've seen episodes of the British/original "Ali G Show," and I know he did the *character* Borat, but I don't remember the "Throw the Jew Down the Well" shtick being such a big part of those segments.
I could be wrong. I'm not contradicting you just to start an argument - that's not how I roll, seattle.
Posted by: Knemon at November 30, 2006 04:16 PM (LxTnx)
6
seattle,
You're a good semi-resident lib. You're respectful most of the time (as much as the rest of us) and you don't usually get all "chimpybushitlerburtondieboldchickenhawk" on us.
I know you get called names and thrown under the bus every once in a while but I like that you still stick around here and post your comments.
I hope the fact that I said something nice about you doesn't get me banned or ridiculed.
You're a good semi-resident lib. You're respectful most of the time (as much as the rest of us) and you don't usually get all "chimpybushitlerburtondieboldchickenhawk" on us.
I know you get called names and thrown under the bus every once in a while but I like that you still stick around here and post your comments.
I hope the fact that I said something nice about you doesn't get me banned or ridiculed.
Posted by: Rosetta at November 30, 2006 04:17 PM (CTqCo)
7
seattle,
I believe you may be missing the larger point that Krauthammer is making. He is pointing out how interesting it is that America is constantly being ridiculed from within and without for being a hateful, racist, anti-semitic country, when there are many, many other places around the world that are much worse than we could ever hope to be.
But if you simply want to defend Borat and ignore the underlying message, that's your prerogative.
I believe you may be missing the larger point that Krauthammer is making. He is pointing out how interesting it is that America is constantly being ridiculed from within and without for being a hateful, racist, anti-semitic country, when there are many, many other places around the world that are much worse than we could ever hope to be.
But if you simply want to defend Borat and ignore the underlying message, that's your prerogative.
Posted by: wiserbud at November 30, 2006 04:18 PM (2+/7m)
8
careful rosetta, slough hates black people.
Posted by: mike at November 30, 2006 04:25 PM (CDn52)
9
david brooks' description of borat (cited by jrauthammer in his opeening paragraph but redacted here) is worth repeating: "a supreme display of elite snobbery reveling in the humiliation of the hoaxed hillbilly."
Posted by: mcmorris at November 30, 2006 04:28 PM (1zqZY)
10
Ace,
Are you smoking dope? This is about selling a film. All us Southern rednecks hate them kikes. This is such an obvious bullshit movie, that you belittle yourself by reviewing the obvious.
HELLO?? The stereo typed USA sells.
Why waste your time, it's a f***king great 7th grade movie. I made it before You Tube, I am suing their ass.
Posted by: kempermanx at November 30, 2006 04:37 PM (Wc54u)
11
Knemon,
I checked Wikipedia to make sure before I posted. They claim that Borat and other proto-Borat characters have been around for a long while.
Thanks Rosetta,
I actually got a bunch of kudos back when there was that dust-up over Michael Richards. None of those people seemed to get banned. (the kudos givers that is, not the slavery deniers and overt racists who did seem to get banned). Thanks for the comment.
wiserbud,
I didn't miss anything. I guess us liberals ascribe to the 'put your own house in order...' maxim a little more that conservatives. Of course we can find anti-semitism elsewhere. So what? That is like saying 'let's not focus on corruption in our government becasue look at Nigeria. Sure a Nigerian coming over here and exposing our corruption is a bit hypocritical.
But, as I basically argued, if it turns out that the Nigerian has already driven his anti-corruption schtick into the ground in Nigeria, why can't he come here and do it here as well?
mike:
You are correct. I hate three of them.
I checked Wikipedia to make sure before I posted. They claim that Borat and other proto-Borat characters have been around for a long while.
Thanks Rosetta,
I actually got a bunch of kudos back when there was that dust-up over Michael Richards. None of those people seemed to get banned. (the kudos givers that is, not the slavery deniers and overt racists who did seem to get banned). Thanks for the comment.
wiserbud,
I didn't miss anything. I guess us liberals ascribe to the 'put your own house in order...' maxim a little more that conservatives. Of course we can find anti-semitism elsewhere. So what? That is like saying 'let's not focus on corruption in our government becasue look at Nigeria. Sure a Nigerian coming over here and exposing our corruption is a bit hypocritical.
But, as I basically argued, if it turns out that the Nigerian has already driven his anti-corruption schtick into the ground in Nigeria, why can't he come here and do it here as well?
mike:
You are correct. I hate three of them.
Posted by: seattle slough at November 30, 2006 04:40 PM (H5l9d)
12
A MacArthur"Genius" Grant winner blasts the hypocrisy of Borat in a funny way:
Borat the Memo and Chris Hitchens sees the movie not as displaying racism but something else: Borat Meets Some Painfully Polite Americans: http://www._____.com/id/2153578/fr/rss/ (replace underscore with "slate" because mu.nu flags the site as inappropriate), which is also the first thing I thought of when I found out about the premise of this movie.
Borat the Memo and Chris Hitchens sees the movie not as displaying racism but something else: Borat Meets Some Painfully Polite Americans: http://www._____.com/id/2153578/fr/rss/ (replace underscore with "slate" because mu.nu flags the site as inappropriate), which is also the first thing I thought of when I found out about the premise of this movie.
Posted by: jmchez at November 30, 2006 04:45 PM (hL8zc)
13
And mcmorris, I don't think there is a single person in that film one could classify as a hillbilly.
SPOILER ALERT!!
Here are the marks as I recall it.
A townfull of Romanians
A subway full of New Yorkers
A driving instructor
A comedy coach
Alan Keyes
A group of homosexuals
A group of young urban black men
An elderly Jewish couple
Three frat guys
A rodeo announcer
A rodeo audience
An antique store owner
A southern society dining club
An etiquette coach
A hotel desk employee
A telegraph deliveryman
A garage sale
A car salesman
A mega church
A TV newscast
Pamela Anderson
A group of men at a convention
With the lone exception of perhaps some of the rodeo fans, not a single poor, uneducated white American in the entire group. No hillbillies. Anyone proclaiming otherwise, has simply not seen the film.
SPOILER ALERT!!
Here are the marks as I recall it.
A townfull of Romanians
A subway full of New Yorkers
A driving instructor
A comedy coach
Alan Keyes
A group of homosexuals
A group of young urban black men
An elderly Jewish couple
Three frat guys
A rodeo announcer
A rodeo audience
An antique store owner
A southern society dining club
An etiquette coach
A hotel desk employee
A telegraph deliveryman
A garage sale
A car salesman
A mega church
A TV newscast
Pamela Anderson
A group of men at a convention
With the lone exception of perhaps some of the rodeo fans, not a single poor, uneducated white American in the entire group. No hillbillies. Anyone proclaiming otherwise, has simply not seen the film.
Posted by: seattle slough at November 30, 2006 04:52 PM (H5l9d)
14
Oh, and I forgot about the 3 feminists!
Posted by: seattle slough at November 30, 2006 04:53 PM (H5l9d)
15
I guess us liberals ascribe to the 'put your own house in order...' maxim a little more that conservatives.
Damn right!
Damn right!
Posted by: Alcee Hastings at November 30, 2006 04:56 PM (VM7Fg)
16
I guess us liberals ascribe to the 'put your own house in order...' maxim a little more that conservatives.
You got that right!
You got that right!
Posted by: William Jefferson at November 30, 2006 04:58 PM (VM7Fg)
17
I guess us liberals ascribe to the 'put your own house in order...' maxim a little more that conservatives.
em, I, er, second that, er statement.
Wanna, um, come for a drive with me? hic
em, I, er, second that, er statement.
Wanna, um, come for a drive with me? hic
Posted by: Ted Kennedy at November 30, 2006 05:01 PM (VM7Fg)
18
Hey guys, I was referring to country, not party. And I don't beleive I have offered a word, cent, or wish of support for any of you. But thanks for chiming in.
Posted by: seattle slough at November 30, 2006 05:03 PM (H5l9d)
Posted by: USA at November 30, 2006 05:14 PM (VM7Fg)
20
I guess us liberals ascribe to the 'put your own house in order...' maxim a little more that conservatives.
I put my house in order before I disorded my house.
I put my house in order before I disorded my house.
Posted by: John Kerry at November 30, 2006 05:16 PM (w+ipT)
21
I invented putting your house in order. With an eco-safe broom.
Posted by: Al Gore at November 30, 2006 05:17 PM (w+ipT)
22
If you want me to come to your house call 555-5555...
Posted by: Barney Frank at November 30, 2006 05:18 PM (w+ipT)
23
contempt. sneering contempt. borat should be seen as an act of cowardice. unwilling or unable to confront the vicious and deadly serious antisemitism and clear menace of the muslims among them (out of "tolerance"),he kicks dumb americans. it's reminiscent of andy kaufman but moreso of michael moore, whose films beginning with roger & me drip with open contempt for all the stupid americans. they cheered at cannes, their superiority comforted, while the bombs were being planted.
Posted by: mcmorris at November 30, 2006 05:20 PM (1zqZY)
24
btw, the humanity, decency and compassion of the "dumb" people in roger & me and borat outshines the self-aggrandizing abuse of them.
Posted by: mcmorris at November 30, 2006 05:27 PM (1zqZY)
25
USA (Slayer Daddy?)
Did you just call me a traitor because I think that it is a good idea to expose anti-semitism in America?
WTF???!!!
How exactly does that make me a traitor? Seriously. I can't criticize my own countrymen?
Here's the really funny part Einstein, assuming you are the same nitwit who just posted the last seven or eight posts - you just criticized numerous Americans. So I guess you get to criticize Americans but when I do it, I am a traitor. Makes sense to me. Does stupid come in a can now or something?
Fuck you. You are a absolute moron.
Did you just call me a traitor because I think that it is a good idea to expose anti-semitism in America?
WTF???!!!
How exactly does that make me a traitor? Seriously. I can't criticize my own countrymen?
Here's the really funny part Einstein, assuming you are the same nitwit who just posted the last seven or eight posts - you just criticized numerous Americans. So I guess you get to criticize Americans but when I do it, I am a traitor. Makes sense to me. Does stupid come in a can now or something?
Fuck you. You are a absolute moron.
Posted by: seattle slough at November 30, 2006 05:27 PM (H5l9d)
26
Baron Cohen could easily have found what he seeks closer to home. He is, after all, from Europe
But really, considering how easy it must be to coax an anti-Semitic statement out of an Arab or Frenchman, how funny would that be?
Baron Cohen could easily have found what he seeks closer to home. He is, after all, from Europe
But really, considering how easy it must be to coax an anti-Semitic statement out of an Arab or Frenchman, how funny would that be?
Posted by: Gordon at November 30, 2006 05:27 PM (8zF9q)
27
You're right, we should have a perfectly clean slate before we are allowed to be offended by the transparent anti-American "humor" that is constantly be foisted on us, disguised as "social commentary." Call me when that day comes.
Meanwhile, don't you find it the least bit interesting that Borat is not being arrested, or worse, for his "social commentary?" Funny how the one country that is constantly being defined by it's lowest and least representative members by the oh-so-intelligent elites is also one of the only countries that protects and defends their right to do it.
I doubt that they have worn out the humor of addressing the evils of their own countries, but are more likely deathly afraid of the repercussions of their jokes. Ahhh, the courage of the jester.
By the way, you're also right, I have not seen the movie. I have, however, seen enough of his clips to know what it is. Like the one where he asks the karate instructor how to defend against the Jew claw. The guy tried numerous times to
nicely explain to him how wrong that was, until he finally gave up and politely put up with Borat until he was done. My, that was just hilarious. What an anti-semite the karate instructor was, when he was eventually pushed past the point of annoyance with the idiot he was having to deal with.
Meanwhile, don't you find it the least bit interesting that Borat is not being arrested, or worse, for his "social commentary?" Funny how the one country that is constantly being defined by it's lowest and least representative members by the oh-so-intelligent elites is also one of the only countries that protects and defends their right to do it.
I doubt that they have worn out the humor of addressing the evils of their own countries, but are more likely deathly afraid of the repercussions of their jokes. Ahhh, the courage of the jester.
By the way, you're also right, I have not seen the movie. I have, however, seen enough of his clips to know what it is. Like the one where he asks the karate instructor how to defend against the Jew claw. The guy tried numerous times to
nicely explain to him how wrong that was, until he finally gave up and politely put up with Borat until he was done. My, that was just hilarious. What an anti-semite the karate instructor was, when he was eventually pushed past the point of annoyance with the idiot he was having to deal with.
Posted by: wiserbud at November 30, 2006 05:30 PM (2+/7m)
28
mcmorris:
I agree. Most of the people in Borat come across just fine. The black guys, the jewish couple, the "gypsy," and the driving instructor all have nothing to be ashamed of.
The only people that really came across badly were the misogynist frat guys and the homophobic rodeo announcer. Really that's it. And they volunteered some really terrible things.
The car dealer and gun dealer came across fairly bad as well, but when you give a straight answer to "how fast do I need to go to kill the gypsy?" or "what is best gun to kill the jew?" that's on you.
And none of them were hillbillies to any extent.
I agree. Most of the people in Borat come across just fine. The black guys, the jewish couple, the "gypsy," and the driving instructor all have nothing to be ashamed of.
The only people that really came across badly were the misogynist frat guys and the homophobic rodeo announcer. Really that's it. And they volunteered some really terrible things.
The car dealer and gun dealer came across fairly bad as well, but when you give a straight answer to "how fast do I need to go to kill the gypsy?" or "what is best gun to kill the jew?" that's on you.
And none of them were hillbillies to any extent.
Posted by: seattle slough at November 30, 2006 05:33 PM (H5l9d)
29
seattle slough: if you want to see open an vicious expressions of antisemitism by americans, go to the comments section of any post on israel or any non-liberal jew at huffpo, dkos or du. you won't find it here, or at malkin, lgf, powerline, etc. it is extraordinary. you should have seen the filth hurled at michael richards (who isn't jewish) over at huffpo.
Posted by: mcmorris at November 30, 2006 05:38 PM (1zqZY)
30
Seattle slough, if you want to come to the next rally we are going to be discussing the proper way to get our house in order.
Posted by: Sen. Bryd at November 30, 2006 05:41 PM (CDn52)
31
Seattle - thanks for clearing that up at the top...and damn, I need to spell check now and then.
Posted by: adam h at November 30, 2006 05:42 PM (erRvx)
32
wiserbud,
You obviously didn't get the joke in the karate bit. The joke isn't that the karate instructor (to the extent that the joke is even on the instructor) is an anti-semite. It is that this karate instructor believed that this ridiculous character could not only exist, but be a television personality in Khazakhstan.
Sometimes Baron Cohen reveals anti-semitism. But usually he just reveals American elitisim. He shows perfectly normal Americas who think we (Americans) are so much more cultured and smart than everyone else, we believe they (meaning an ostensibly well known Khazakh such as Borat) are capable of such outlandish beliefs and practices.
That's what the joke is. In the movie he doesn't prey on the poor. He skewers everyone. From respected liberal feminists and Alan Keyes, to inner city youths and frat guys. Everyone is guilty of the same crime. We believe that this outrageous character is plausible. Whether the person humors him or agrees with him, what they are not doing is calling bullshit on him.
You obviously didn't get the joke in the karate bit. The joke isn't that the karate instructor (to the extent that the joke is even on the instructor) is an anti-semite. It is that this karate instructor believed that this ridiculous character could not only exist, but be a television personality in Khazakhstan.
Sometimes Baron Cohen reveals anti-semitism. But usually he just reveals American elitisim. He shows perfectly normal Americas who think we (Americans) are so much more cultured and smart than everyone else, we believe they (meaning an ostensibly well known Khazakh such as Borat) are capable of such outlandish beliefs and practices.
That's what the joke is. In the movie he doesn't prey on the poor. He skewers everyone. From respected liberal feminists and Alan Keyes, to inner city youths and frat guys. Everyone is guilty of the same crime. We believe that this outrageous character is plausible. Whether the person humors him or agrees with him, what they are not doing is calling bullshit on him.
Posted by: seattle slough at November 30, 2006 05:43 PM (H5l9d)
33
open vicious anti-semitism of thje kill all jews type. regularly featured at prominent liberal sites. daily. deal with that among your "own", seattle.
Posted by: mcmorris at November 30, 2006 05:45 PM (1zqZY)
34
I've been wondering if all the free publicity for Borat isn't part of the ongoing effort to keep American Jewish voters from escaping the Democrats' plantation. Whenever Mideastern issues threaten to break the traditional liberal monopoly on Jewish votes, we suddenly see all kinds of news pieces about Scary Christians.
Remember when Passion of the Christ came out and there was all sorts of alarmist talk about how it might inspire anti-semitic violence? (Because, you know, those Christians are itching for a good Jew-killin'.) Well, Jews were murdered when it came out, but I doubt the film was showing in Gaza or the West Bank at the time.
Right now we not only have Borat showing how Red Staters are all dangerous homophobic Jew-hatin' rubes, we also have the Jesus Camp movie about how those Scary Christians are actually _teaching their kids_ about, you know, God and Jew-killin' and all that Christian stuff.
So I expect the Scary Christians will be making another appearance circa summer 2008. Expect another "documentary" about their Jew-slappin' ways during the run-up to election season. Anything to remind Jewish voters that it's only the Democrats who can save them from the vicious Christians, and that any objections they might have to Democrats selling out Israel and bending over for Islamic terorism should be kept to themselves if they know what's good for them.
Remember when Passion of the Christ came out and there was all sorts of alarmist talk about how it might inspire anti-semitic violence? (Because, you know, those Christians are itching for a good Jew-killin'.) Well, Jews were murdered when it came out, but I doubt the film was showing in Gaza or the West Bank at the time.
Right now we not only have Borat showing how Red Staters are all dangerous homophobic Jew-hatin' rubes, we also have the Jesus Camp movie about how those Scary Christians are actually _teaching their kids_ about, you know, God and Jew-killin' and all that Christian stuff.
So I expect the Scary Christians will be making another appearance circa summer 2008. Expect another "documentary" about their Jew-slappin' ways during the run-up to election season. Anything to remind Jewish voters that it's only the Democrats who can save them from the vicious Christians, and that any objections they might have to Democrats selling out Israel and bending over for Islamic terorism should be kept to themselves if they know what's good for them.
Posted by: Trimegistus at November 30, 2006 05:54 PM (6QdQZ)
35
last comment for me tonight:
mcmorris: being pro or anti Israel has nothing to do with being pro or anti semitic. Israel is not judaism.
Lots of Jews and non Jews alike both agree and disagree with what Israel does.
My stepdad is Jewish and lived in Israel for eleven years. He hates what they are doing as far as the Palestinian situation. Something tells me he isn't an anti-semite (or even an anti zionist for that matter).
I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself (and tonight, apparently Sacha Baron Cohen). Certainly I don't speak for random unnamed posters at dKos or DU. As far as Michael Richards comments at HuffPo, I have found Huff Po's comments to run on both sides of the aisle, and the comments on this blog after the Richards' fiasco weren't exactly pretty. Ask anyone.
mcmorris: being pro or anti Israel has nothing to do with being pro or anti semitic. Israel is not judaism.
Lots of Jews and non Jews alike both agree and disagree with what Israel does.
My stepdad is Jewish and lived in Israel for eleven years. He hates what they are doing as far as the Palestinian situation. Something tells me he isn't an anti-semite (or even an anti zionist for that matter).
I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself (and tonight, apparently Sacha Baron Cohen). Certainly I don't speak for random unnamed posters at dKos or DU. As far as Michael Richards comments at HuffPo, I have found Huff Po's comments to run on both sides of the aisle, and the comments on this blog after the Richards' fiasco weren't exactly pretty. Ask anyone.
Posted by: seattle slough at November 30, 2006 05:54 PM (H5l9d)
36
mr. slough: i'm not talking about zionism/anti-zionism or policy on israel. i'm talkin' the "kill the jews" stuff. at huffpo, dkos and du. regularly. i saw no anti-semitic comments on richard here. anti-idiot, yes. if the animus that informs the lib blog readership appeared here or at freep or any conservative site, i'd have seen it and lawd, we'd hear about it. buddy, your obfuscation and excuse for the huffpo anti-semites ("it was israeli policy" or "everybody does it" relativism) is revealing and dishonest.
Posted by: mcmorris at November 30, 2006 06:13 PM (1zqZY)
37
seattle slough's most idiotic comment of the night:
being pro or anti Israel has nothing to do with being pro or anti semitic
This knucklehead must really believe we are stupid. (And some of you morons are patting it on the back.)
This seattle slough dope can jump from one thread accusing people of racism for not being politically correct or raially sensitive enough to another thread declaring as an apologist for the most evil radical genocidal maniacs currently living in the world.
It just admitted that being anti-Israel, i.e. hating the existence of the state of Israel and everything they do, is perfectly okay. It has no problem being in total agreement with radical Islamofascists and what those Islamofascists teach their young children -- hate Israel.
It is so utterly foolish for one to say that hating Israel has nothing to do with hating Jews. Israel bends over backwards to live in peace with it's neighbors. It is quite clear to everyfuckingone that it's the radical Muslim who have no interest whatsoever in a peaceful coexistence with Israel. None.
But with who does this idiot, this progressive thinker, this illuminated one, seattle slough, side?
With the fucking radical Islamists! And you ninnies are telling it how great of a lefty troll it is!
being pro or anti Israel has nothing to do with being pro or anti semitic
This knucklehead must really believe we are stupid. (And some of you morons are patting it on the back.)
This seattle slough dope can jump from one thread accusing people of racism for not being politically correct or raially sensitive enough to another thread declaring as an apologist for the most evil radical genocidal maniacs currently living in the world.
It just admitted that being anti-Israel, i.e. hating the existence of the state of Israel and everything they do, is perfectly okay. It has no problem being in total agreement with radical Islamofascists and what those Islamofascists teach their young children -- hate Israel.
It is so utterly foolish for one to say that hating Israel has nothing to do with hating Jews. Israel bends over backwards to live in peace with it's neighbors. It is quite clear to everyfuckingone that it's the radical Muslim who have no interest whatsoever in a peaceful coexistence with Israel. None.
But with who does this idiot, this progressive thinker, this illuminated one, seattle slough, side?
With the fucking radical Islamists! And you ninnies are telling it how great of a lefty troll it is!
Posted by: Bart at November 30, 2006 06:32 PM (zNost)
38
The joke isn't that the karate instructor (to the extent that the joke
is even on the instructor) is an anti-semite. It is that this karate
instructor believed that this ridiculous character could not only
exist, but be a television personality in Khazakhstan.
That is some fine knot-tying skills you have there, slough.
So, the jokes are about American's anti-semitism unless he doesn't get the response he wants, then the jokes are about American's elitist attitudes towards foreigners. And if that doesn't work, then they are about how no one in their right mind could believe that this kind of stupid and offensive mindset could still exist anywhere in the world. Yep, how stupid we Americans are, assuming the best of someone until they expose themselves as jerks. And yet, we are still willing to be polite to them, instead of obnoxiously bitch-slapping them for their own good.
How about this: The karate instructo was being polite and respectful to someone who he initially assumed was not a complete and total jerk. And even as Borat got more and more ridiculous, he maintained a level of respect for him, instead of calling an ass and walking away.
But I guess that doesn't fit into the "all Americans are stereotypical low-lifes" meme. Kind of like the comment Borat made about the host's wife at the dinner party he was invited to in the movie. Oooh, how funny. He insulted the guy's wife and the nasty, elitist American didn't bounce his stupid ass out the door. But I guess if he had, then, in your opinion, that would have been funny because it showed how violent Americans are.
is even on the instructor) is an anti-semite. It is that this karate
instructor believed that this ridiculous character could not only
exist, but be a television personality in Khazakhstan.
That is some fine knot-tying skills you have there, slough.
So, the jokes are about American's anti-semitism unless he doesn't get the response he wants, then the jokes are about American's elitist attitudes towards foreigners. And if that doesn't work, then they are about how no one in their right mind could believe that this kind of stupid and offensive mindset could still exist anywhere in the world. Yep, how stupid we Americans are, assuming the best of someone until they expose themselves as jerks. And yet, we are still willing to be polite to them, instead of obnoxiously bitch-slapping them for their own good.
How about this: The karate instructo was being polite and respectful to someone who he initially assumed was not a complete and total jerk. And even as Borat got more and more ridiculous, he maintained a level of respect for him, instead of calling an ass and walking away.
But I guess that doesn't fit into the "all Americans are stereotypical low-lifes" meme. Kind of like the comment Borat made about the host's wife at the dinner party he was invited to in the movie. Oooh, how funny. He insulted the guy's wife and the nasty, elitist American didn't bounce his stupid ass out the door. But I guess if he had, then, in your opinion, that would have been funny because it showed how violent Americans are.
Posted by: wiserbud at November 30, 2006 06:39 PM (2+/7m)
39
And you ninnies are telling it how great of a lefty troll it is!
I agreed with slough once and it felt...uncomfortable, considering his other positions. Other than that, he is more of an argumentative, self-important, auto-contrarian than Larry the Useless ever was.
I agreed with slough once and it felt...uncomfortable, considering his other positions. Other than that, he is more of an argumentative, self-important, auto-contrarian than Larry the Useless ever was.
Posted by: wiserbud at November 30, 2006 06:44 PM (2+/7m)
40
seattle seems like a nice guy, though. tries to use reason. writes in complete sentences. doesn't make personal attacks.
Posted by: mcmorris at November 30, 2006 07:15 PM (1zqZY)
41
doesn't make personal attacks.
See comment #25.
Struck me as just a little over the top. I was just sorry it wasn't directed at me. I love making the oh-so-superior tolerant become so ... intolerant.
See comment #25.
Struck me as just a little over the top. I was just sorry it wasn't directed at me. I love making the oh-so-superior tolerant become so ... intolerant.
Posted by: random AoS moron at November 30, 2006 07:28 PM (2+/7m)
42
random aos moron: you're right... that g-damned prick.
Posted by: mcmorris at November 30, 2006 07:35 PM (1zqZY)
43
if that guy shows up here again, i think i'll pull the ol' "hey, what's that over there? is that a ufo!?" trick. then, whammo, right when he least expects it. bastard.
Posted by: mcmorris at November 30, 2006 07:38 PM (1zqZY)
44
dammit. I meant to change my name on that one.
And, just to be clear, I'm not condemning ss for his comment. I've certainly said worse. But don't for a minute think that ss isn't above the occasional incivility when he feels that his pseudo-intellectual comments are not persuasive enough.
And, just to be clear, I'm not condemning ss for his comment. I've certainly said worse. But don't for a minute think that ss isn't above the occasional incivility when he feels that his pseudo-intellectual comments are not persuasive enough.
Posted by: wiserbud at November 30, 2006 07:44 PM (2+/7m)
45
seattle slough
Krauthammer's point is that Cohen himself absurdly claims that he is heading off the next Holocaust with his shtick, whereas America, short of Israel itself, is the least likely place where its citizens will participate in another Shoah. If Cohen says, "I am just engaging in sophomoric humor," then great. If he says, "I am preventing the next Holocaust," then he deserves all the crap Krauthammer can dish out.
Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hizb'allah, says "if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide," clearly a genocidal sentiment. Not just anti-Israeli, but anti-Jew. Hizb'allah is doing booming business in the Jew killing sector, but Cohen is looking for the next Holocaust in Oklahoma. Again, this wouldn't be an issue if Cohen himself didn't open his yap about it.
I guess us liberals ascribe to the 'put your own house in order...'
Hey guys, I was referring to country, not party.
Indeed, here is half the problem. Liberals such as yourself when in a mood to ridicule, mock, marginalize, deconstruct, and criticize are able to do so only against their fellow citizens, even when as a matter of principle there are others who are much, much, much more deserving targets. This stance has a superficial moral appeal, but in the end is an unprincipled one.
Krauthammer's point is that Cohen himself absurdly claims that he is heading off the next Holocaust with his shtick, whereas America, short of Israel itself, is the least likely place where its citizens will participate in another Shoah. If Cohen says, "I am just engaging in sophomoric humor," then great. If he says, "I am preventing the next Holocaust," then he deserves all the crap Krauthammer can dish out.
Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hizb'allah, says "if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide," clearly a genocidal sentiment. Not just anti-Israeli, but anti-Jew. Hizb'allah is doing booming business in the Jew killing sector, but Cohen is looking for the next Holocaust in Oklahoma. Again, this wouldn't be an issue if Cohen himself didn't open his yap about it.
I guess us liberals ascribe to the 'put your own house in order...'
Hey guys, I was referring to country, not party.
Indeed, here is half the problem. Liberals such as yourself when in a mood to ridicule, mock, marginalize, deconstruct, and criticize are able to do so only against their fellow citizens, even when as a matter of principle there are others who are much, much, much more deserving targets. This stance has a superficial moral appeal, but in the end is an unprincipled one.
Posted by: caspera at November 30, 2006 07:44 PM (jylGY)
46
well put, caspera. the essence of post-60's liberalism here and in europe is the maintenance of moral superiority. from clinton to sheehan to pelosi to that guy in europe (i forget his name), devoid of policy goals in reality (ending racism or poverty), they posture in self glorification. the products of the success of prosperous societies and lacking substance, they must magnify and demonize their political "enemies" as stupid or racist or fascist, again without substance. this was one of the ominous, telling and frustrating qualities of the clintons and their enablers. while a true islamic war was brewing, they manufactured a class of enemies (right wingers, haters, fundamentalists, republicans, etc.) as the threat to the republic. it provided a protective barrier of brahmin superiority but obscured the real, growing dangers in the world.
Posted by: mcmorris at November 30, 2006 08:25 PM (1zqZY)
47
Well, since you are all still talking about me . . .
The tenor of my comments is in direct proportion to the comment or post that it it in response to. Some ninny calls me a traitor (see the email addy for the poster calling himself USA) and I am perfectly within my rights in giving him an earful (or eyeful as it were).
Otherwise, I think this thread demonstrates how I generally operate. If people want to debate civilly, I am more than happy to do so.
Then you have people like Bart (who was very nearly banned during the Kramer imbroglio) who can't do any better than fling hyperbolic nonsense at people he disagrees with. As Ace himself said: "There's just no telling where the bottom of the barrel is for [Bart]. One of life's grand mysteries."
According to Bart, I'm an al qaeda sympathizer because I don't necessarily believe that one has to be pro israel in order to not be anti-semetic. I mean, how can one possibly respond rationally to something that outrageously stupid? I didn't make a value judgment on "anti-israel" (which Bart defined for me) either way. I just said that one can disagree with Israel and not be an anti-semite.
Obviously many fundamentalist muslims are anti-Israel (to the extent THEY are) BECAUSE of their anti-semitism. Me, I am a non religious person. So I don't see a biblical or other reason why Jews need to be in Israel at all. I think it was a bad idea. That said, I am for peace among all middle easterners of whatever stripe and we all obviously have differing opinions about the best way to go about working towards that.
But I digress. This thread was never to be about me. This thread was to be about how Chales Krauthammer made a poor argument and to a lesser extent how Ace made a poor decision in linking to it and quoting extensively from it. Don't believe me? Read my first comment (#2).
Seeing as how we have beat Borat to death (hell, I practically wrote out the entire movie) I would hope this thread would run its course, no matter how fun and interesting it is to chat about Seattle Slough. (Odin knows I sure like to talk about him).
The tenor of my comments is in direct proportion to the comment or post that it it in response to. Some ninny calls me a traitor (see the email addy for the poster calling himself USA) and I am perfectly within my rights in giving him an earful (or eyeful as it were).
Otherwise, I think this thread demonstrates how I generally operate. If people want to debate civilly, I am more than happy to do so.
Then you have people like Bart (who was very nearly banned during the Kramer imbroglio) who can't do any better than fling hyperbolic nonsense at people he disagrees with. As Ace himself said: "There's just no telling where the bottom of the barrel is for [Bart]. One of life's grand mysteries."
According to Bart, I'm an al qaeda sympathizer because I don't necessarily believe that one has to be pro israel in order to not be anti-semetic. I mean, how can one possibly respond rationally to something that outrageously stupid? I didn't make a value judgment on "anti-israel" (which Bart defined for me) either way. I just said that one can disagree with Israel and not be an anti-semite.
Obviously many fundamentalist muslims are anti-Israel (to the extent THEY are) BECAUSE of their anti-semitism. Me, I am a non religious person. So I don't see a biblical or other reason why Jews need to be in Israel at all. I think it was a bad idea. That said, I am for peace among all middle easterners of whatever stripe and we all obviously have differing opinions about the best way to go about working towards that.
But I digress. This thread was never to be about me. This thread was to be about how Chales Krauthammer made a poor argument and to a lesser extent how Ace made a poor decision in linking to it and quoting extensively from it. Don't believe me? Read my first comment (#2).
Seeing as how we have beat Borat to death (hell, I practically wrote out the entire movie) I would hope this thread would run its course, no matter how fun and interesting it is to chat about Seattle Slough. (Odin knows I sure like to talk about him).
Posted by: seattle slough at November 30, 2006 08:28 PM (b1cs0)
48
he thinks israel was a bad idea and there shouldn't be jews there... sheesh.
Posted by: mcmorris at November 30, 2006 08:48 PM (1zqZY)
49
he's not only non-religious but non-historical.
let's see: ahistorical, ignorant of factual realities, relativistic, and a narcissist. a liberal! and surprise, an anti-semite of convenience who thinks there shouldn't be an israel or jews there. aww, did the jews and israel cause him a discomfort? well, there certainly are ways to deal with that problem aren't there? for peace, of course...
let's see: ahistorical, ignorant of factual realities, relativistic, and a narcissist. a liberal! and surprise, an anti-semite of convenience who thinks there shouldn't be an israel or jews there. aww, did the jews and israel cause him a discomfort? well, there certainly are ways to deal with that problem aren't there? for peace, of course...
Posted by: mcmorris at November 30, 2006 08:58 PM (1zqZY)
50
Responding to you is not "talking about you." Just because you are not here at the specific moment a response to you is posted, it is not "talking about you." Get over yourself.
USA called you a hater. Not a traitor. H...a...t...e...r. And, unless you are a completely humorless boob, I think you might have understood that it was a joke.
Beyond that, you haven't really given any decent response to the points that have been made here, especially by caspera, other than to defend Borat's so-called exposure of the rampant antisemitism that is supposedly running rampant in the US. Krauthammer's point is that Borat is yet another high-minded leftist who is taking the easy path to a quick buck, much like many of the racial whores and anti-American opportunists, by trying to make a quick buck by focusing his ridicule on an easy, less risky target.
If these people were so all-fired concerned about fixing the world, perhaps their efforts might be more meaningful if they were to focus them on where the real problems lie, as opposed to taking cheap shots at the US.
USA called you a hater. Not a traitor. H...a...t...e...r. And, unless you are a completely humorless boob, I think you might have understood that it was a joke.
Beyond that, you haven't really given any decent response to the points that have been made here, especially by caspera, other than to defend Borat's so-called exposure of the rampant antisemitism that is supposedly running rampant in the US. Krauthammer's point is that Borat is yet another high-minded leftist who is taking the easy path to a quick buck, much like many of the racial whores and anti-American opportunists, by trying to make a quick buck by focusing his ridicule on an easy, less risky target.
If these people were so all-fired concerned about fixing the world, perhaps their efforts might be more meaningful if they were to focus them on where the real problems lie, as opposed to taking cheap shots at the US.
Posted by: wiserbud at November 30, 2006 09:02 PM (2+/7m)
51
israel is a "bad idea" and he doesn't "see a reason for jews to be there at all". gee, where have i heard that before? why, the leaderships of iran, hezbollah, hamas, the plo, the baathists, nazi germany, etc., etc.
Posted by: mcmorris at November 30, 2006 09:11 PM (1zqZY)
52
btw, thanks for posting krauthammer's excellent article, mr. blogger at the aceof spades website. was hoping you would.
Posted by: mcmorris at November 30, 2006 09:17 PM (1zqZY)
53
Hey, mcmorris.
I am right here. You can talk to me directly if you like. Here's a little biographical info for you. I don't hate jews. In fact, exactly 50% of my ancestry is jewish. I have a jewish last name. People perceive me as jewish.
I said creating what we call Israel was a bad idea. That doesn't mean, now that there are millions of jews living there, I want them removed or killed. Big difference. I honestly believe that the world would have been better off had Israel not been created. That includes the jews.
As I said, I don't see why that particular place was the place to create a jewish homeland. And frankly, I don't really think that jews need a homeland anyway.
My jewish family did just fine without ever needing to live in or receive protection from Israel. If the goal in creating Israel, following WWII was to create a Jewish homeland so jews would be free of persecution once and for all, it was a bad idea to place that homeland in the middle east.
I am not a Christian so I don't see any religious purpose in placing the Jews there. To that extent, I don't really like the idea of any state built around a religion. But there it is. And so it is our job as civilized human beings to work towards a peaceful cohabitation. I personally think Israel has done nearly as bad a job as the palestinians in creating that.
But that is neither here nor there. Those beliefs do not an anti-semite make. I love my Jewish family and having been around religious jews and gentiles, I can easily say I prefer the jews (in a general sense). They are simply more likely to be pragmatic and reasonable about their religious beliefs.
I am right here. You can talk to me directly if you like. Here's a little biographical info for you. I don't hate jews. In fact, exactly 50% of my ancestry is jewish. I have a jewish last name. People perceive me as jewish.
I said creating what we call Israel was a bad idea. That doesn't mean, now that there are millions of jews living there, I want them removed or killed. Big difference. I honestly believe that the world would have been better off had Israel not been created. That includes the jews.
As I said, I don't see why that particular place was the place to create a jewish homeland. And frankly, I don't really think that jews need a homeland anyway.
My jewish family did just fine without ever needing to live in or receive protection from Israel. If the goal in creating Israel, following WWII was to create a Jewish homeland so jews would be free of persecution once and for all, it was a bad idea to place that homeland in the middle east.
I am not a Christian so I don't see any religious purpose in placing the Jews there. To that extent, I don't really like the idea of any state built around a religion. But there it is. And so it is our job as civilized human beings to work towards a peaceful cohabitation. I personally think Israel has done nearly as bad a job as the palestinians in creating that.
But that is neither here nor there. Those beliefs do not an anti-semite make. I love my Jewish family and having been around religious jews and gentiles, I can easily say I prefer the jews (in a general sense). They are simply more likely to be pragmatic and reasonable about their religious beliefs.
Posted by: seattle slough at November 30, 2006 09:21 PM (b1cs0)
54
Hmm. The "traitor" thing took me back for a second. I saw "hater". Seattle, is defending/attacking well.
I also appreciate mcmorris in his "I can read a map" defense of the damn near universally hated Jews. This is a good fight.
I have to favor Israel, though, over islam. mohamhead pees like a girl.
I also appreciate mcmorris in his "I can read a map" defense of the damn near universally hated Jews. This is a good fight.
I have to favor Israel, though, over islam. mohamhead pees like a girl.
Posted by: drolmorg at November 30, 2006 09:38 PM (QTvV8)
55
wiserbud,
check USA's email addy. I think you have to be in the classic comment checking mode to do so. I'll save you the trouble: if you put your cursor on USA it reads "traitor@goaway.com." So, either that guy was directing that at me personally, or at all liberals. Either way, he is a class A dick and warrants no civility from me.
I didn't see Caspera's argument till just now.
But he didn't tell me anything I don't already know. I know that lots of fundie muslims are serious anti-semites.
I also just disagree. Railing on a blog against people who's supporters do not read or care about said blog is just whistling in the wind. Put another way, if I wanted to criticize muslims, I'd do it on a pro muslim board or blog. Not here.
I criticized Krauthammer because he (in my opinion backed up with facts) unfairly criticized Borat. That is not attacking America. That I think Americans are fair game for satire despite the fact that there are truly evil people in the world doesn't make me intellectually dishonest. I am an American first. I work on trying to make America better. If that means I critique Americans I think are wrong so be it.
Pointing out the existence of Hezbollah does not explain to me why an english speaking Brit who has exhausted his ability to perform his schtick in Britain can't turn his attention on the US. It isn't like Britain isn't a supporter of Israel as well.
Finally, getting Palestinians to say nasty things about jews would be neither funny, surprising, or even interesting. We are talking about a comedy movie after all.
check USA's email addy. I think you have to be in the classic comment checking mode to do so. I'll save you the trouble: if you put your cursor on USA it reads "traitor@goaway.com." So, either that guy was directing that at me personally, or at all liberals. Either way, he is a class A dick and warrants no civility from me.
I didn't see Caspera's argument till just now.
But he didn't tell me anything I don't already know. I know that lots of fundie muslims are serious anti-semites.
I also just disagree. Railing on a blog against people who's supporters do not read or care about said blog is just whistling in the wind. Put another way, if I wanted to criticize muslims, I'd do it on a pro muslim board or blog. Not here.
I criticized Krauthammer because he (in my opinion backed up with facts) unfairly criticized Borat. That is not attacking America. That I think Americans are fair game for satire despite the fact that there are truly evil people in the world doesn't make me intellectually dishonest. I am an American first. I work on trying to make America better. If that means I critique Americans I think are wrong so be it.
Pointing out the existence of Hezbollah does not explain to me why an english speaking Brit who has exhausted his ability to perform his schtick in Britain can't turn his attention on the US. It isn't like Britain isn't a supporter of Israel as well.
Finally, getting Palestinians to say nasty things about jews would be neither funny, surprising, or even interesting. We are talking about a comedy movie after all.
Posted by: seattle slough at November 30, 2006 09:39 PM (b1cs0)
56
slough, why do you post comments on this blog? It's one thing to troll, but you have been here for a long time. Why do you feel the need to post comments here?
your comment at 2:11 was reasonable until:
"I am not a Christian so I don't see any religious purpose in placing the Jews there."
It wasn't the ultra-evil evangelicals who created Israel. I think, just my opinion, that you want to split the difference about Israel.
Sure, it was created, but the islamists have a decent case against them.
btw, people criticize the Borat movie because Borat/ali G isn't that funny. It's not worth twenty minutes on DVD, why would anyone waste their time with it for over an hour.
your comment at 2:11 was reasonable until:
"I am not a Christian so I don't see any religious purpose in placing the Jews there."
It wasn't the ultra-evil evangelicals who created Israel. I think, just my opinion, that you want to split the difference about Israel.
Sure, it was created, but the islamists have a decent case against them.
btw, people criticize the Borat movie because Borat/ali G isn't that funny. It's not worth twenty minutes on DVD, why would anyone waste their time with it for over an hour.
Posted by: mike at November 30, 2006 09:57 PM (CDn52)
57
jews have lived continuously in and emigrated to the area called palestine for millenia. by the time of the balfour declaration the jewish population of the area was already substantial. by world war ll, jews formed the majority in the area of eventual partition. some people think that was a bad idea. tough.
Posted by: mcmorris at November 30, 2006 09:58 PM (1zqZY)
58
slough, why do you post comments on this blog? It's one thing to troll, but you have been here for a long time.
I'd leave him alone. The blog is boring without dissenting voices, and SS is lucid more than half the time. That's better than 99% of the trolls who migrate through here.
I'd leave him alone. The blog is boring without dissenting voices, and SS is lucid more than half the time. That's better than 99% of the trolls who migrate through here.
Posted by: geoff at November 30, 2006 10:07 PM (2d9Ny)
59
newsbreak: this just in! millions of jewish families did not "do just fine" before 1947.
Posted by: mcmorris at November 30, 2006 10:18 PM (1zqZY)
60
"The black guys........all have nothing to be ashamed of."
He used some great 'bait' with the black guys on the stoop:
"I need the direction to California", "You look like Michael Jackson, Beat It", "I like you peoples, can you teach me how to dress", "I like very much Cokie Bucher?", "Can you teach me speaka like you?", "How do you say how do you do?"
It was like those poor kids were getting waterboarded to reveal their hatred for homosexuals, whites and jews (homosexual white jews being the worse unless they own a rap music company). On the other hand that song might have gotten him a beat down in just about any neighborhood. I think the cameras created the looseness: the first black guy to speak says "who you with", which seems like a question about the nature of the filming - tv show, news, etc..
At the website Rotten Tomatoes they have a link to 16 clips from the movie. Crank up the bong and click on She is My Sister.
He used some great 'bait' with the black guys on the stoop:
"I need the direction to California", "You look like Michael Jackson, Beat It", "I like you peoples, can you teach me how to dress", "I like very much Cokie Bucher?", "Can you teach me speaka like you?", "How do you say how do you do?"
It was like those poor kids were getting waterboarded to reveal their hatred for homosexuals, whites and jews (homosexual white jews being the worse unless they own a rap music company). On the other hand that song might have gotten him a beat down in just about any neighborhood. I think the cameras created the looseness: the first black guy to speak says "who you with", which seems like a question about the nature of the filming - tv show, news, etc..
At the website Rotten Tomatoes they have a link to 16 clips from the movie. Crank up the bong and click on She is My Sister.
Posted by: Sweetie at November 30, 2006 10:19 PM (vedtv)
61
mike, (assuming you are actually curious and not just messing with me)
I guess I thought it was obvious. I like to debate topics. This particular blog is fairly entertaining and it has a nice size population of potential foils. And most of those foils are reasonable chaps and chapettes for the most part.
Also, I haven't been banned. I started out on Slate's Fray way back in the day. It got too big. Then I tried FreeRepublic. I was banned for essentially not being a homophobe in about a day and a half. I stuck around redstate for a while but got canned after about six months. So far, Ace has allowed me to remain here. I try to not be too disrespectful and I do try to limit my posts to the topic on hand. ( Of course like all of us, I get dragged off topic.)
So that is why I post here as opposed to some other conservative blog.
But it really comes down to the fact that posting comments on liberal blogs bores the shit out of me.
If you and I agree completely on something, we have nothing to talk about.
So what is my role here?
At the very least, I try to put another opinion into what would otherwise often be an echo chamber. Obviously some here seem to enjoy arguing against me. I do get to coax out more than the talking point so I learn your side better than just reading posts and complimentary comments. And my arguments get a good working over which is good for them as well.
An argument is only good if it can survive against a contrary argument.
That said, I don't kid myself into thinking that I have an impact as far as converting people. But just to get our (or at least my) side on the table is something.
I guess I thought it was obvious. I like to debate topics. This particular blog is fairly entertaining and it has a nice size population of potential foils. And most of those foils are reasonable chaps and chapettes for the most part.
Also, I haven't been banned. I started out on Slate's Fray way back in the day. It got too big. Then I tried FreeRepublic. I was banned for essentially not being a homophobe in about a day and a half. I stuck around redstate for a while but got canned after about six months. So far, Ace has allowed me to remain here. I try to not be too disrespectful and I do try to limit my posts to the topic on hand. ( Of course like all of us, I get dragged off topic.)
So that is why I post here as opposed to some other conservative blog.
But it really comes down to the fact that posting comments on liberal blogs bores the shit out of me.
If you and I agree completely on something, we have nothing to talk about.
So what is my role here?
At the very least, I try to put another opinion into what would otherwise often be an echo chamber. Obviously some here seem to enjoy arguing against me. I do get to coax out more than the talking point so I learn your side better than just reading posts and complimentary comments. And my arguments get a good working over which is good for them as well.
An argument is only good if it can survive against a contrary argument.
That said, I don't kid myself into thinking that I have an impact as far as converting people. But just to get our (or at least my) side on the table is something.
Posted by: seattle slough at November 30, 2006 10:23 PM (b1cs0)
62
I've disagreed with slough more than a few times myself, but I will also say that he's been fairly un-trollish here. Someone who disagrees with you isn't a troll. They may be worng (as slough is about isael) but not a troll per se.
And Borat can suck a turd. Cohen's as funny as a pile of fresh dogshit sitting in the sun. Any "comedy" that draws it's emotional heft from somebody not giving your ass a well-deserved beatdown just ain't funny. In any context.
And Borat can suck a turd. Cohen's as funny as a pile of fresh dogshit sitting in the sun. Any "comedy" that draws it's emotional heft from somebody not giving your ass a well-deserved beatdown just ain't funny. In any context.
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 30, 2006 10:29 PM (lL2Hb)
63
ANd slough said that he hated black people, "three of them."
to which I rejoin, "Isn't that the entire black population up there in the Emerald City?"
RACIST!!!!
to which I rejoin, "Isn't that the entire black population up there in the Emerald City?"
RACIST!!!!
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 30, 2006 10:31 PM (lL2Hb)
64
"It is that this karate
instructor believed that this ridiculous character could not only
exist, but be a television personality in Khazakhstan. "
Ahhhh, so the joke is not that Americans are anti-semites, but that we are stupid and ignorant of foreign cultures.
instructor believed that this ridiculous character could not only
exist, but be a television personality in Khazakhstan. "
Ahhhh, so the joke is not that Americans are anti-semites, but that we are stupid and ignorant of foreign cultures.
Posted by: at November 30, 2006 10:35 PM (rZN9P)
65
Ahhhh, so the joke is not that Americans are anti-semites, but that we are stupid and ignorant of foreign cultures.
oh, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
that was so funny I passed out.
RIIIIIIIGHT
oh, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
that was so funny I passed out.
RIIIIIIIGHT
Posted by: hobgoblin at November 30, 2006 10:43 PM (lL2Hb)
66
Ah but Hobgoblin, the three black people I hate all live in Toledo.
And anonymous and 3:35. Yes. Sometimes the joke's funny even when it is on you and yours.
As an aside, I generally found the Borat segments of the Ali G show hard to watch in the way that Crank Yankers was hard to watch. The segment would go on until the rube called bullshit so it was really uncomfortable for anywhere up to ten minutes. Funny, but uncomfortable.
The movie, I thought, was hilarious and a lot less painful than I expected. It actually had a loose narrative and each rube was messed with (for the most part) just long enough to progress the story along.
And anonymous and 3:35. Yes. Sometimes the joke's funny even when it is on you and yours.
As an aside, I generally found the Borat segments of the Ali G show hard to watch in the way that Crank Yankers was hard to watch. The segment would go on until the rube called bullshit so it was really uncomfortable for anywhere up to ten minutes. Funny, but uncomfortable.
The movie, I thought, was hilarious and a lot less painful than I expected. It actually had a loose narrative and each rube was messed with (for the most part) just long enough to progress the story along.
Posted by: seattle slough at November 30, 2006 10:50 PM (b1cs0)
67
<>
Oh, personally I think its funny and Ali G even more so. But I'm sure some people are taking a little too much glee from this, and that's what people here get pissed off about. Like French people loving Michael Moore.
I live in Taiwan, and all the dumbass stories from the states get here and make us look stupid - from fake turkeys to stained blue dresses. It's not that big of a deal because the Taiwan legislature has weekly fistfights that make it to CNN so fair is fair, I guess, though the result is that everyone becomes somewhat dumber since the media everywhere is so shallow.
It's usually the pretensious Europeans that are most annoying about these things...like their farts don't smell, if you get my drift.
I also agree that Borat had to go to the USA to find more targets...and its a huge media market, so why not? And folks keep in mind the USA created "Dieter" from Saturday Night Live...touch my monkey. Now is the time on sprockets when we dance.
Oh, personally I think its funny and Ali G even more so. But I'm sure some people are taking a little too much glee from this, and that's what people here get pissed off about. Like French people loving Michael Moore.
I live in Taiwan, and all the dumbass stories from the states get here and make us look stupid - from fake turkeys to stained blue dresses. It's not that big of a deal because the Taiwan legislature has weekly fistfights that make it to CNN so fair is fair, I guess, though the result is that everyone becomes somewhat dumber since the media everywhere is so shallow.
It's usually the pretensious Europeans that are most annoying about these things...like their farts don't smell, if you get my drift.
I also agree that Borat had to go to the USA to find more targets...and its a huge media market, so why not? And folks keep in mind the USA created "Dieter" from Saturday Night Live...touch my monkey. Now is the time on sprockets when we dance.
Posted by: Aaron at November 30, 2006 11:07 PM (rZN9P)
68
I do not find the chap entertaining.
Posted by: Me at December 01, 2006 03:58 AM (fdqoa)
69
And folks keep in mind the USA created "Dieter" from Saturday Night Live...touch my monkey. Now is the time on sprockets when we dance.
Blaim Canada.
Blaim Canada.
Posted by: Entropy at December 01, 2006 05:45 AM (m6c4H)
70
Ahhhh, so the joke is not that Americans are anti-semites, but that we are stupid and ignorant of foreign cultures.
That joke's so old it has whiskers. Seriously, the "dumb ignorant American hick" has been a stereotype in Europe for decades. Nothing particularly new or clever about it, and nothing particularly clever about portraying it.
The "Americans aare anti-semites" isn't quite as hoary as the other stereotype, and in this case I would say that it is a case of European projection here; that is, America has all of these manifold sins, it must also have this to a great degree.
BTW, has anyone heard the phrase that "The truth is on the cutting room floor"? No one told Borat to stick his anti-Semitism? Perhaps that never made the film. Wouldn't have sold the premise so well, you see.
That joke's so old it has whiskers. Seriously, the "dumb ignorant American hick" has been a stereotype in Europe for decades. Nothing particularly new or clever about it, and nothing particularly clever about portraying it.
The "Americans aare anti-semites" isn't quite as hoary as the other stereotype, and in this case I would say that it is a case of European projection here; that is, America has all of these manifold sins, it must also have this to a great degree.
BTW, has anyone heard the phrase that "The truth is on the cutting room floor"? No one told Borat to stick his anti-Semitism? Perhaps that never made the film. Wouldn't have sold the premise so well, you see.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at December 01, 2006 06:05 AM (O9Cc8)
71
I want to thank the troll for proving my point. The same lefty troll who throws around "homophobe" for people against same-sex marriage and accuses people of being "overt racists" if they are against affirmative action is jumping through hoops to explain why Israel shouldn't exist.
No matter how you slice it, the Islamic extremists and the seattle slough Left agree on the endpoint -- Israel is the root of the world's problems and it should be wiped off the map.
For once, just once, I'd like to hear a leftwing liberal say, "Whoa, whoa, I may not like what the government of Israel does, but I sure don't support what the lunatics in the Isalmic world want to do to Israel. If I did, that would make me a hypocrite."
They don't say it. You know why?
Because Borat is right. You'll find plenty of Jew-hatin' right here in America. Just look on the Left. Seattle slough is a perfect example of a jew-hater. He'll stand idly by while the Islamic extremists do his dirty work. Until then, he'll continue to be a spokesman for Iran and Al Qaeda. You think I'm exaggerating? Well, they all basically say the same things.
If seattle slough (and the Left) would be honest with us, they would admit that it would be nice to be rid of all the world's major religions. What better place to start than with the Jews?
Right, seattle slough? You wouldn't mind if a nuke went off in Tel Aviv, right? The Israelis had it coming, right?
But you'll be right there vehemntly condemning Geoerge Allen for saying macaca. You'll be right there screaming for the release of all the prisoners in Gitmo. You'll be right there standing up for civil rights for terrorists.
Whereever we look, seattle slough will be right there, on the wrong side of every single issue. But he's a good troll, right?
No matter how you slice it, the Islamic extremists and the seattle slough Left agree on the endpoint -- Israel is the root of the world's problems and it should be wiped off the map.
For once, just once, I'd like to hear a leftwing liberal say, "Whoa, whoa, I may not like what the government of Israel does, but I sure don't support what the lunatics in the Isalmic world want to do to Israel. If I did, that would make me a hypocrite."
They don't say it. You know why?
Because Borat is right. You'll find plenty of Jew-hatin' right here in America. Just look on the Left. Seattle slough is a perfect example of a jew-hater. He'll stand idly by while the Islamic extremists do his dirty work. Until then, he'll continue to be a spokesman for Iran and Al Qaeda. You think I'm exaggerating? Well, they all basically say the same things.
If seattle slough (and the Left) would be honest with us, they would admit that it would be nice to be rid of all the world's major religions. What better place to start than with the Jews?
Right, seattle slough? You wouldn't mind if a nuke went off in Tel Aviv, right? The Israelis had it coming, right?
But you'll be right there vehemntly condemning Geoerge Allen for saying macaca. You'll be right there screaming for the release of all the prisoners in Gitmo. You'll be right there standing up for civil rights for terrorists.
Whereever we look, seattle slough will be right there, on the wrong side of every single issue. But he's a good troll, right?
Posted by: Bart at December 01, 2006 09:49 AM (cap8i)
72
Bart.
I feel sorry for you. You just posted 9 paragraphs of demonstrably wrong crap.
I previously wrote the following:
"I said creating what we call Israel was a bad idea. That doesn't mean, now that there are millions of jews living there, I want them removed or killed. Big difference."
So how you extrapolate that into me wanting to wipe out jews, nuke Tel Aviv, have al-Qaeda do my dirty work, or whatever?
And then how do you go further in somehow suggesting that my comments prove your demonstrably wrong argument?
Do you build strawmen for a living? What does it say about you that you ascribe such murderous hatred on me?
And, yes, I do think the world would be a better place without religion. That doesn't mean I want to kill anyone. I just want people to wake the fuck up and realize that their religious beliefs are ridiculous. No killing involved. None.
I am one of those secular progressives Bill O'Reilly is always railing about. I think the world would be a much better place with a lot more of us running things.
I think you are just a small angry young man. It is really sad. Your last few comments have been about how you don't understand why people give me respect and now you are trying to slander me (and you'll note, you are speaking to nameless readers, not to me). It is almost as if you are jealous. Like you realize that nobody here has any respect for you at all and can't understand how someone might have some level of respect for me even if they disagree with me.
You got nothing going for you. You are a conservative who gets no respect on a conservative blog. Pathetic.
I feel sorry for you. You just posted 9 paragraphs of demonstrably wrong crap.
I previously wrote the following:
"I said creating what we call Israel was a bad idea. That doesn't mean, now that there are millions of jews living there, I want them removed or killed. Big difference."
So how you extrapolate that into me wanting to wipe out jews, nuke Tel Aviv, have al-Qaeda do my dirty work, or whatever?
And then how do you go further in somehow suggesting that my comments prove your demonstrably wrong argument?
Do you build strawmen for a living? What does it say about you that you ascribe such murderous hatred on me?
And, yes, I do think the world would be a better place without religion. That doesn't mean I want to kill anyone. I just want people to wake the fuck up and realize that their religious beliefs are ridiculous. No killing involved. None.
I am one of those secular progressives Bill O'Reilly is always railing about. I think the world would be a much better place with a lot more of us running things.
I think you are just a small angry young man. It is really sad. Your last few comments have been about how you don't understand why people give me respect and now you are trying to slander me (and you'll note, you are speaking to nameless readers, not to me). It is almost as if you are jealous. Like you realize that nobody here has any respect for you at all and can't understand how someone might have some level of respect for me even if they disagree with me.
You got nothing going for you. You are a conservative who gets no respect on a conservative blog. Pathetic.
Posted by: seattle slough at December 01, 2006 10:25 AM (H5l9d)
Posted by: Bart at December 01, 2006 10:45 AM (LsuzH)
74
yawn
Posted by: seattle slough at December 01, 2006 10:50 AM (H5l9d)
75
There are more things in heaven and earth, slough, than are dreamtof in your philosophy.
I loathe O'Reilly, but I also have to say that you are like a color-blind man insisting color doesn't matter. Simply because you cannot experience the transcendent does not mean that it does not exist.
While transcendent reality may make you uncomfortable or appear baffling, millions upon millions (of all faiths) feel it as a sensory perception. The problem with "secular progressives" isn't that you have the wrong ideas (which you do, but hey whatever), it's that you are convinced that other people are somehow wrong in what they (to an extent) physically percieve.
It's like you're literally denying someone their sanity or perception. People get angry about that. It would be like me insisting that you had no nose, despite you being able to pick it.
Compunding this deficiency in your ability to perceive the transcendent is your mainfest arrogance. I don't mean that as an insult. I am arrogant. I have been blessed with an efficient and capacious logical mind. I know this. You too feel intellectually gifted, and overloook your inability to see what many others see as some type of deficiency on their part. Really, however, if you have some of the greatest minds in the history of Western civilization hewing to a spirituality that you find ridiculous, doesn't that give you pause. Hell, even S0crat3s (filter will spit it out if I spell it right) came to the conclusion of a single Godhead by sheer force of logic.
If man has the ability to reason and moralize abstractly, that suggests the existence of a higher moral or spiritual reality. Proof? No. But that's where sensory perception matters. Simply because you haven't yet set aside your preconceptions about divinity and literally felt God, that's doesn't mean it doesn't or cannot happen. Try just thinking about what a universal "overmind" could be like---something outside of time and space, yet responsible for setting the conditions of the physical universe. They to "meditate" upon first things and see where that gets you.
Really, that's just my honest advice to you as someone presumably older and more banged around by life. Humility is a wonderful quality to cultivate.
I loathe O'Reilly, but I also have to say that you are like a color-blind man insisting color doesn't matter. Simply because you cannot experience the transcendent does not mean that it does not exist.
While transcendent reality may make you uncomfortable or appear baffling, millions upon millions (of all faiths) feel it as a sensory perception. The problem with "secular progressives" isn't that you have the wrong ideas (which you do, but hey whatever), it's that you are convinced that other people are somehow wrong in what they (to an extent) physically percieve.
It's like you're literally denying someone their sanity or perception. People get angry about that. It would be like me insisting that you had no nose, despite you being able to pick it.
Compunding this deficiency in your ability to perceive the transcendent is your mainfest arrogance. I don't mean that as an insult. I am arrogant. I have been blessed with an efficient and capacious logical mind. I know this. You too feel intellectually gifted, and overloook your inability to see what many others see as some type of deficiency on their part. Really, however, if you have some of the greatest minds in the history of Western civilization hewing to a spirituality that you find ridiculous, doesn't that give you pause. Hell, even S0crat3s (filter will spit it out if I spell it right) came to the conclusion of a single Godhead by sheer force of logic.
If man has the ability to reason and moralize abstractly, that suggests the existence of a higher moral or spiritual reality. Proof? No. But that's where sensory perception matters. Simply because you haven't yet set aside your preconceptions about divinity and literally felt God, that's doesn't mean it doesn't or cannot happen. Try just thinking about what a universal "overmind" could be like---something outside of time and space, yet responsible for setting the conditions of the physical universe. They to "meditate" upon first things and see where that gets you.
Really, that's just my honest advice to you as someone presumably older and more banged around by life. Humility is a wonderful quality to cultivate.
Posted by: hobgoblin at December 01, 2006 11:03 AM (p1s9n)
76
you don't understand why people give me respect - ss
SS,
You mistake our ability to make distinctions between trolls for respect.
Think of it this way - If most of our leftoid trolls are blind, then the one-eyed leftoid troll with adenoids looks good by comparison. But he's still a troll.
And Borat is another preening coward leftist guilty of displacement - pretending that his allies are his enemies because (i) he can then pretend to himself that his real enemies don't exist and (ii) he can hope that his real enemies will leave him alone since he is playing their game.
He's also an idiot to, at a time when millions of Jews, both in Israel and in Europe are in real danger of being murdered for being Jewish, try to play these silly games with the public perception of Israel's strongest (and as a practical matter only) ally.
Or to put it another way, he's smart, smart, smart, smart, stupid as a fucking post.
SS,
You mistake our ability to make distinctions between trolls for respect.
Think of it this way - If most of our leftoid trolls are blind, then the one-eyed leftoid troll with adenoids looks good by comparison. But he's still a troll.
And Borat is another preening coward leftist guilty of displacement - pretending that his allies are his enemies because (i) he can then pretend to himself that his real enemies don't exist and (ii) he can hope that his real enemies will leave him alone since he is playing their game.
He's also an idiot to, at a time when millions of Jews, both in Israel and in Europe are in real danger of being murdered for being Jewish, try to play these silly games with the public perception of Israel's strongest (and as a practical matter only) ally.
Or to put it another way, he's smart, smart, smart, smart, stupid as a fucking post.
Posted by: max at December 01, 2006 11:14 AM (210f1)
77
But usually he just reveals American elitisim. He shows perfectly normal Americas who think we (Americans) are so much more cultured and smart than everyone else, we believe they (meaning an ostensibly well known Khazakh such as Borat) are capable of such outlandish beliefs and practices.
I see, we're elitists willing to believe the worse about those icky people from other countries. Or we're dumbasses who don't know anything about them crazy furriners. Or we're both. At the same time. The idea that people usually show a little forbearance towards strangers-until-five-minutes-ago who appear to be either a little disturbed or unclear on a few culture-bound concepts is too banal to consider, I guess.
So, when Borat was running around Britain with his shtick, were the British being elitist and arrogant too? Or is it always just Americans?
I see, we're elitists willing to believe the worse about those icky people from other countries. Or we're dumbasses who don't know anything about them crazy furriners. Or we're both. At the same time. The idea that people usually show a little forbearance towards strangers-until-five-minutes-ago who appear to be either a little disturbed or unclear on a few culture-bound concepts is too banal to consider, I guess.
So, when Borat was running around Britain with his shtick, were the British being elitist and arrogant too? Or is it always just Americans?
Posted by: ak at December 01, 2006 11:43 AM (R3EUA)
78
Hobgoblin,
Thanks for the reply. But there is simply nothing you can say that would convince me that I should put any credence in any person's metaphysical beliefs.
We are all atheists. You about most metaphysical beliefs, me about all. You hit the nail on the head when you said that millions feel it. However, by mere logical deduction, they can't all feel it, can they? Surely wiccans who truly feel the living earth can't be correct. Not if Muslims who communicate with Allah are correct. Not if Scientologists truly experience the shedding of body thetans. Not if Christians have a personal relationship with Jesus that is real and physical.
And, regardless of what you believe, and I really really really couldn't care less, all we atheists want is for you to keep your irrational beliefs out of public decision making.
I don't care what the koran says. I don't care what the Book of Morman says. None of these fairy tales should be given a lick of credence by lawmakers, policy administrators, and the like. It just doesn't make any sense.
I get that people really believe the stuff. That doesn't mean it is real. It is like most chronic pain sufferers. (bear with me) Most chronic pain is all in someone's head. That is not to say they don't feel pain. Pain is only felt in the brain. That is why the brain scan of a person with a burning finger looks the same as a brain scan of a hypnotized person with the suggestion of a burning finger look the same. That is why amputees feel pain in limbs they no longer have.
So I get that people like you really really think it is a real thing. And I am telling you that it is all bullshit. Not because I am some genius who knows something you don't know. Quite the opposite. I just don't buy into whatever religious belief you have bought into.
I don't think you have the wrong ideas. I think that I don't trust the ideas of the charlitans who created whatever "holy" book it is you think I should ascribe to. I am all about the exchange of ideas. Just don't present an idea as "holy." Let's debate all ideas as equals - that is human ideas created by humans in the absence of divine providence.
Does that sound fair enough? Imagine how frustrating it would be to have President Tom Cruise shutting down all mental health facilities by saying "L.Ron said it, 'nuff said."
That is what we atheists deal with every day. Exactly that. That is what is wrong with the middle east and it is a large part of what is wrong here.
cheers.
Thanks for the reply. But there is simply nothing you can say that would convince me that I should put any credence in any person's metaphysical beliefs.
We are all atheists. You about most metaphysical beliefs, me about all. You hit the nail on the head when you said that millions feel it. However, by mere logical deduction, they can't all feel it, can they? Surely wiccans who truly feel the living earth can't be correct. Not if Muslims who communicate with Allah are correct. Not if Scientologists truly experience the shedding of body thetans. Not if Christians have a personal relationship with Jesus that is real and physical.
And, regardless of what you believe, and I really really really couldn't care less, all we atheists want is for you to keep your irrational beliefs out of public decision making.
I don't care what the koran says. I don't care what the Book of Morman says. None of these fairy tales should be given a lick of credence by lawmakers, policy administrators, and the like. It just doesn't make any sense.
I get that people really believe the stuff. That doesn't mean it is real. It is like most chronic pain sufferers. (bear with me) Most chronic pain is all in someone's head. That is not to say they don't feel pain. Pain is only felt in the brain. That is why the brain scan of a person with a burning finger looks the same as a brain scan of a hypnotized person with the suggestion of a burning finger look the same. That is why amputees feel pain in limbs they no longer have.
So I get that people like you really really think it is a real thing. And I am telling you that it is all bullshit. Not because I am some genius who knows something you don't know. Quite the opposite. I just don't buy into whatever religious belief you have bought into.
I don't think you have the wrong ideas. I think that I don't trust the ideas of the charlitans who created whatever "holy" book it is you think I should ascribe to. I am all about the exchange of ideas. Just don't present an idea as "holy." Let's debate all ideas as equals - that is human ideas created by humans in the absence of divine providence.
Does that sound fair enough? Imagine how frustrating it would be to have President Tom Cruise shutting down all mental health facilities by saying "L.Ron said it, 'nuff said."
That is what we atheists deal with every day. Exactly that. That is what is wrong with the middle east and it is a large part of what is wrong here.
cheers.
Posted by: seattle slough at December 01, 2006 11:49 AM (H5l9d)
79
That is what we atheists deal with every day.
Bullshit, Seattle. Bull. Shit.
Like most chronic pain sufferers, that is all in your head. I'm not saying you don't believe it, just that it's not real.
Bullshit, Seattle. Bull. Shit.
Like most chronic pain sufferers, that is all in your head. I'm not saying you don't believe it, just that it's not real.
Posted by: Rocketeer at December 01, 2006 12:03 PM (CV7yY)
80
Slough,
Like you wrote earlier, (which I found hilarious) "Do you build strawmen for a living?"
Au contraire mon ami, only a very few folks urge public policy based SOLELY on what a holy book says. Maybe Scientologists or Fundy Muslims, but very few christians, at least. Most religious politically involved folks I know believe that a certain public policy idea os good and find support for that in their faith, but not on the basis that it IS faith.
I honestly think you believe these characatures of the religious right that you're expounding, so I'm not going to start namecalling. However, you should know that there are innumerable secualr reason to say, for example, that most if not all abortion is bad, and never even touch a Bible in the process. But yet, when the political position comes form a believer, you dismiss it out of hand. No fucking fair.
No one is suggesting a return to blue laws based only on biblical precepts, but gee, wouldn't it be good as a society to foster a single day of rest to seperate us from the material demands of the world? Similarly, can we have a debate on whether open societal approval of homosexuality presents a long-term danger to societal continuity, even throwinf Leviticus out the window? I think so. You apparently think not. Correct me if I'm wrong. Otherwise, you're simply saying that views held by religious folks are not properly part of a policy discussion given your antipathy toward faith.
And However, by mere logical deduction, they can't all feel it, can they? Surely wiccans who truly feel the living earth can't be correct. Not if Muslims who communicate with Allah are correct. Not if Scientologists truly experience the shedding of body thetans. Not if Christians have a personal relationship with Jesus that is real and physical.
My response, consistent with Roman Catholic dogma, is that yes, they CAN all be correct. God can manifest himself in pre- or non-Christian cultures also. The Truth of existence can be discovered with or without Christianity, but Christianity is the "one sure way" according to the Church. So yes, druids and Taoists can feel a measure of the Divine. All men can perceive eternal truth. See, my point was divinity must be more abstracted for many intellectuials to understand it. The conversion of intellectuals to Catholicism over the years positively demonstrates this. And then, on return to the basic stories, one can see them as "true" in a more, shall we say in an AoS way, nuanced.
Scriptural exegesis ain't your bag, I know, but when viewed as an abstract quality, the search for and recognition of transcendence has remained as much of a constant as any other single aspect of human nature. To say humanity can cope without religion is like saying that humanity can shed its arms.
Like you wrote earlier, (which I found hilarious) "Do you build strawmen for a living?"
Au contraire mon ami, only a very few folks urge public policy based SOLELY on what a holy book says. Maybe Scientologists or Fundy Muslims, but very few christians, at least. Most religious politically involved folks I know believe that a certain public policy idea os good and find support for that in their faith, but not on the basis that it IS faith.
I honestly think you believe these characatures of the religious right that you're expounding, so I'm not going to start namecalling. However, you should know that there are innumerable secualr reason to say, for example, that most if not all abortion is bad, and never even touch a Bible in the process. But yet, when the political position comes form a believer, you dismiss it out of hand. No fucking fair.
No one is suggesting a return to blue laws based only on biblical precepts, but gee, wouldn't it be good as a society to foster a single day of rest to seperate us from the material demands of the world? Similarly, can we have a debate on whether open societal approval of homosexuality presents a long-term danger to societal continuity, even throwinf Leviticus out the window? I think so. You apparently think not. Correct me if I'm wrong. Otherwise, you're simply saying that views held by religious folks are not properly part of a policy discussion given your antipathy toward faith.
And However, by mere logical deduction, they can't all feel it, can they? Surely wiccans who truly feel the living earth can't be correct. Not if Muslims who communicate with Allah are correct. Not if Scientologists truly experience the shedding of body thetans. Not if Christians have a personal relationship with Jesus that is real and physical.
My response, consistent with Roman Catholic dogma, is that yes, they CAN all be correct. God can manifest himself in pre- or non-Christian cultures also. The Truth of existence can be discovered with or without Christianity, but Christianity is the "one sure way" according to the Church. So yes, druids and Taoists can feel a measure of the Divine. All men can perceive eternal truth. See, my point was divinity must be more abstracted for many intellectuials to understand it. The conversion of intellectuals to Catholicism over the years positively demonstrates this. And then, on return to the basic stories, one can see them as "true" in a more, shall we say in an AoS way, nuanced.
Scriptural exegesis ain't your bag, I know, but when viewed as an abstract quality, the search for and recognition of transcendence has remained as much of a constant as any other single aspect of human nature. To say humanity can cope without religion is like saying that humanity can shed its arms.
Posted by: hobgoblin at December 01, 2006 12:27 PM (p1s9n)
81
Did someone mention anti-semitism?
Posted by: Cindy Sheehan at December 01, 2006 12:35 PM (p9O/F)
82
I was trying to say the same thing as hobgoblin, but was perhaps a little too laconic to communicate it effectively.
I'd also like to say this - most atheists, and all secular humanists, are every bit as religious as Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists, Wiccans, etc. It's just that they're blind to it because they fundamentally misunderstand the ur-nature of religion: it requires no God, but it does require a devil.
For most atheists and all secular humanists, practitioners of organized religion are their devil.
I'd also like to say this - most atheists, and all secular humanists, are every bit as religious as Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists, Wiccans, etc. It's just that they're blind to it because they fundamentally misunderstand the ur-nature of religion: it requires no God, but it does require a devil.
For most atheists and all secular humanists, practitioners of organized religion are their devil.
Posted by: Rocketeer at December 01, 2006 12:35 PM (CV7yY)
83
Are we having a convention?
Posted by: Jesse Jackson at December 01, 2006 12:36 PM (p9O/F)
84
I think the world would be a much better place with a lot more of us running things.
Well, you did a bang-up job in the Soviet Union.
You guys are doing great in North Korea. And the people are very very happy in China.
Not to mention all the happy shiny people living under their new dictator, Hugo Chavez, in Venezuela.
(And yes, he is dictator. We both know that he is in office for life.)
Well, you did a bang-up job in the Soviet Union.
You guys are doing great in North Korea. And the people are very very happy in China.
Not to mention all the happy shiny people living under their new dictator, Hugo Chavez, in Venezuela.
(And yes, he is dictator. We both know that he is in office for life.)
Posted by: Bart at December 01, 2006 12:37 PM (UOa/2)
85
And as support for the contention that pre-Christian societies can share in understanding of divine truth, I would point out Chesterton's book on Aquinas (The Dumb Ox) or Assisi, can't remember which, discussing the triumph of rude and simple Roman hearth gods over the ornate and powerful cults of Moloch and Baal in Carthage. It was indeed a triumph of ideas and one based, in my opinion and his, on the advancement of a proper understanding of the ultimate reality of life. Rome was far weaker, but ultimately, the societally destructive rites and beliefs of Cathage weakened them, while humble and reverent early Roman beliefs served to strengthen the early Roman republic against teh most powerful network of its time.
Now, the basic point is, traditional morality and restaints serve a purpose that is not apparent to the immediate generation but serve to protect the long-term stability of human cultures. Hence the similarities in human ethics across the globe. Now, consider this in the context of what rules "God" would like to see imposed.
See? Histroy can prove empirically what religion states as conclusory. Religion in its true form is simply a way to describe the essence of reality.
Now, the basic point is, traditional morality and restaints serve a purpose that is not apparent to the immediate generation but serve to protect the long-term stability of human cultures. Hence the similarities in human ethics across the globe. Now, consider this in the context of what rules "God" would like to see imposed.
See? Histroy can prove empirically what religion states as conclusory. Religion in its true form is simply a way to describe the essence of reality.
Posted by: hobgoblin at December 01, 2006 12:47 PM (p1s9n)
86
Hob,
You really are putting the cart before the horse in many respects. I believe I distinctly said that we can discuss anything. I love to discuss things. Let's just not try to bolster our arguments by claiming some mythical being agrees with them. I am with you 100% when you say we should debate gay marriage without Leviticus. 100%.
And there is nothing innately human about religion. Nor is there anything innately religious about being human. We humans (assuming you are not a creationist, and I suppose if you are, then this argument is pointless) survived for hundreds of thousands of years without religion.
Most early religions were created to sustain Kleptocracies. In that a ruler would declare himself a god to justify the extraction of tribute.
Basic values of human decency did not come from on high. They are what keeps societies from falling apart. So those societies that kept murder and rape to a minimum were generally better equipped to survive in competition with their less functional rivals. Survival of the fittest.
But don't sell humanity short by putting everything good on the shoulders of some diety. It is we that created the ten commandments. It is we that wrote the Magna Carta. It is we that built our great society.
When we believe in a "god" then further suppose to understand what might please or motivate such a creature, we are at the very height of hubris.
You really are putting the cart before the horse in many respects. I believe I distinctly said that we can discuss anything. I love to discuss things. Let's just not try to bolster our arguments by claiming some mythical being agrees with them. I am with you 100% when you say we should debate gay marriage without Leviticus. 100%.
And there is nothing innately human about religion. Nor is there anything innately religious about being human. We humans (assuming you are not a creationist, and I suppose if you are, then this argument is pointless) survived for hundreds of thousands of years without religion.
Most early religions were created to sustain Kleptocracies. In that a ruler would declare himself a god to justify the extraction of tribute.
Basic values of human decency did not come from on high. They are what keeps societies from falling apart. So those societies that kept murder and rape to a minimum were generally better equipped to survive in competition with their less functional rivals. Survival of the fittest.
But don't sell humanity short by putting everything good on the shoulders of some diety. It is we that created the ten commandments. It is we that wrote the Magna Carta. It is we that built our great society.
When we believe in a "god" then further suppose to understand what might please or motivate such a creature, we are at the very height of hubris.
Posted by: seattle slough at December 01, 2006 01:48 PM (H5l9d)
87
Most early religions were created to sustain Kleptocracies. In that a ruler would declare himself a god to justify the extraction of tribute.
That's not entirely true, but if we concede it, then it follows that redemptive religions - late Judaic schools, the mystery cults, etc. - were a reaction to the oppressive nature of those religions.
Ergo, religion is inherently human. And it demonstrates that humankind is inherently religious.
That's not entirely true, but if we concede it, then it follows that redemptive religions - late Judaic schools, the mystery cults, etc. - were a reaction to the oppressive nature of those religions.
Ergo, religion is inherently human. And it demonstrates that humankind is inherently religious.
Posted by: at December 01, 2006 02:31 PM (TAS4h)
88
When we believe in a "god" then further suppose to understand what might please or motivate such a creature, we are at the very height of hubris.
That is where the voice of history and tradition become so important. If somebody, let's call hi9m Joe Smith (ha) tomorrow said he was divinely inspired and developed an entire social system, we would and should be justifiably skeptical and not listen to his pronouncements.
But after 500-600 (or 4000-5000) years of a society existing under a set of rules, religious or not, that's a bit different. And when someone, with or especially without (Marx, Mao, even the Cato Institute) suggest a distinct break from that tradition, we need to seriously consider the consequences of changing the order that has sustained our culture.
My point is similar to the idea that the will of God can be discerned through the study of various ideas on various cultures. Why did Rome fall (too much concentrated land and too high of taxes)? Why did Carthage die? Why did Byzantium crumble? These questions can be asked of more ancient civilizations too, and the Bible gives examples (historical or not) of tales of how various "sins" (in a non-perjorative sense, but rather defiance of the rules of life) are "punished." It doesn't take a belief in a guy in robes with thunderbolts to see that immoral societies collapse under their own weight, eventually, and that strictly moralistic societies gain ascendancy.
From each of these events we can discern general rules of life on the macro level. We can also see how to live on the micro (family) level from both experience and history. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" isn't just a quasi-commandment, it's a recognized fact of indulging children.
Now, history is the eternal enemy of the liberal, the "progressive," because history shows it has largely all been done before and largely all failed. We see it now with the decline of barren, infertile, and aborted Europe and the fecundity and inevitable demographic ascendancy of Islam. It's a matter of time, as we've become decadent and failed to accept new life into our world. Material comfort breeds selfishness, and selfishness leads to the demise of civilization. But selfishness IS hman nature, so that's why we can never have a perpetual utopia.
Hence the genius of the Founders. They simply sought to make the least bad system. The moralizers of Lincolns day abandoned that restraint in an effort to do something noble---end the world's oldest institution. They succeded, but atthe price of forever altering the nature of the republic, and leading us inevitably to this place, where we have a prosperous largely secular nation that is increasingly authoritarian and imperialistic (not in the DU way, mind you---we are simply getting used to more regulation on personal behavior and we are making the world safe for our commerce, neither of which are bad goals, but both are far from the no entangling alliances ideals of the Founders).
Doom is not around the corner, but it is not far off either. We'll limp along like the Romans for a few hundred years more, largely due to our geographic defenses. Hell, the Roman Repuiblic lasted 500 years before Caesar. But eventually we will reform (probably violently) or be conquered. And it will be one more lesson in God's eternal laws.
That is where the voice of history and tradition become so important. If somebody, let's call hi9m Joe Smith (ha) tomorrow said he was divinely inspired and developed an entire social system, we would and should be justifiably skeptical and not listen to his pronouncements.
But after 500-600 (or 4000-5000) years of a society existing under a set of rules, religious or not, that's a bit different. And when someone, with or especially without (Marx, Mao, even the Cato Institute) suggest a distinct break from that tradition, we need to seriously consider the consequences of changing the order that has sustained our culture.
My point is similar to the idea that the will of God can be discerned through the study of various ideas on various cultures. Why did Rome fall (too much concentrated land and too high of taxes)? Why did Carthage die? Why did Byzantium crumble? These questions can be asked of more ancient civilizations too, and the Bible gives examples (historical or not) of tales of how various "sins" (in a non-perjorative sense, but rather defiance of the rules of life) are "punished." It doesn't take a belief in a guy in robes with thunderbolts to see that immoral societies collapse under their own weight, eventually, and that strictly moralistic societies gain ascendancy.
From each of these events we can discern general rules of life on the macro level. We can also see how to live on the micro (family) level from both experience and history. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" isn't just a quasi-commandment, it's a recognized fact of indulging children.
Now, history is the eternal enemy of the liberal, the "progressive," because history shows it has largely all been done before and largely all failed. We see it now with the decline of barren, infertile, and aborted Europe and the fecundity and inevitable demographic ascendancy of Islam. It's a matter of time, as we've become decadent and failed to accept new life into our world. Material comfort breeds selfishness, and selfishness leads to the demise of civilization. But selfishness IS hman nature, so that's why we can never have a perpetual utopia.
Hence the genius of the Founders. They simply sought to make the least bad system. The moralizers of Lincolns day abandoned that restraint in an effort to do something noble---end the world's oldest institution. They succeded, but atthe price of forever altering the nature of the republic, and leading us inevitably to this place, where we have a prosperous largely secular nation that is increasingly authoritarian and imperialistic (not in the DU way, mind you---we are simply getting used to more regulation on personal behavior and we are making the world safe for our commerce, neither of which are bad goals, but both are far from the no entangling alliances ideals of the Founders).
Doom is not around the corner, but it is not far off either. We'll limp along like the Romans for a few hundred years more, largely due to our geographic defenses. Hell, the Roman Repuiblic lasted 500 years before Caesar. But eventually we will reform (probably violently) or be conquered. And it will be one more lesson in God's eternal laws.
Posted by: hobgoblin at December 01, 2006 02:43 PM (p1s9n)
89
not a creationist.
In fact, I believe in a pre-Ur (pre glacial maximum) culture(s) that was/were somehow obliterated or buried under the sea with the ice age (not "atlantis", but rather humans have been such for 100,000 years. It's idiotic to simply assume that we didn't manage to domesticate plants and animals prior to the end of the last Ice age). Human culture cannot be merely 6000-8000 years old. Where's the other 92,000 years?
But I am simply guessing on that. Plus, it helps that 15,000 is about the longest even durable goods could be expected to survive in the earth, and the glaciers did help to scour much of the temperate surface of the Earth. Who can ever know?
In fact, I believe in a pre-Ur (pre glacial maximum) culture(s) that was/were somehow obliterated or buried under the sea with the ice age (not "atlantis", but rather humans have been such for 100,000 years. It's idiotic to simply assume that we didn't manage to domesticate plants and animals prior to the end of the last Ice age). Human culture cannot be merely 6000-8000 years old. Where's the other 92,000 years?
But I am simply guessing on that. Plus, it helps that 15,000 is about the longest even durable goods could be expected to survive in the earth, and the glaciers did help to scour much of the temperate surface of the Earth. Who can ever know?
Posted by: hobgoblin at December 01, 2006 02:50 PM (p1s9n)
90
I just read (correction, am still reading but almost completed) Guns, Germs, and Steel. It is the best book I have ever read about the creation of our various societies.
If you haven't read it, may I be so humble as to suggest you do. You'd probably love it. It is also the best book to hand to a racist to explain in non-racial terms why europe conqured the native americans and not vice versa.
After reading GG&S I would disagree that we (meaning humanity, not europeans) domesticated plants and animals before the last ice age. Though who can say for sure.
If you haven't read it, may I be so humble as to suggest you do. You'd probably love it. It is also the best book to hand to a racist to explain in non-racial terms why europe conqured the native americans and not vice versa.
After reading GG&S I would disagree that we (meaning humanity, not europeans) domesticated plants and animals before the last ice age. Though who can say for sure.
Posted by: seattle slough at December 01, 2006 03:06 PM (H5l9d)
91
This is a great one topic and gives in depth information. Thanks you and visit here again and again.
Dell XPS M1530 battery Dell XPS M1330 battery Dell Inspiron 1501 battery Dell Studio 1535 battery
Dell XPS M1530 battery Dell XPS M1330 battery Dell Inspiron 1501 battery Dell Studio 1535 battery
Posted by: Dell Inspiron 6400 battery at March 04, 2011 04:31 AM (AmsXW)
92
So this winter, why not verify out what autumn/winter Karen Millen
dress selection they have obtained to match your needs to create
you stand out in xmas parties?Winter celebration garments will from this year's
selection Karen Millen
UK consist of elegant, figure hugging knitwear garments and animal
print jerseys. they Karen Millen UK
store are created to provide out a sensual appear whilst retaining
the woman's organic dignity and poise. This selection is consequently aptly
named the 'Swinging Diva' also it day-to-day lives as a lot as Elena Miro's
objective to create the 'real female really feel self-confident and at peace
with herself'. Even outdoors this collection, girls can locate prior styles
which will perform for any interpersonal function. they are able to locate
stylish dark low-cut, fur collared tops which will perform nicely with
multi-coloured print skirts and matching fur hats and boots.
Posted by: Karen Millen sale at May 02, 2012 01:37 AM (ecJwW)
93
Bodysuits are superb for that carry out cause that you just just do not should be worried about receiving it Karen Millen dresses tucked in evenly, but are me not for everyone. glimpse for high-waisted shorts in pleasurable styles me like a floral Karen Millen sale print for this spring and pair it making utilization of the feminine pastel exceptionally best for just about any fancier going-out outfit. Or attire slicing with plain tank exceptionally best and assertion necklace.Buying them at a thrift store is normally the exceptionally selected way (aka the cheapest). Just make specific you sustain your time and exceptionally best the fit. If call up for be, Karen Millen online positioned over a belt with them; they should turn out to turn out to be tighter than common shorts, otherwise you will possess a .
Posted by: Karen Millen evening dress at May 18, 2012 09:28 PM (JS9DU)
147kb generated in 0.1037 seconds; 50 queries returned 224 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
