USFTA - United States Federal Travel Agency

[DaShi]

Yes, we all know that. But what does it have to do with Kaak's statement?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by snoopy369
BS. The OP clearly implies what Cyclo just stated, that Mexicans are lazy and a burden on the system. If you can't see that, you need to look more carefully inward and consider well whether you're able to consider such things from a neutral viewpoint ...

The OP makes several blanket statements about Mexicans (through satire) that are blatant stereotyping and prejudiced. Such arguments were the core of Jim Crow, and we don't have room in this country for Jim Crow bigots in relation to ANY race or ethnicity.

That pretty much sums it up. Hey Kaak, (can't believe you're still defending this fight, well hey, Remember the Alamo and all that, fight to the death, yay rah). I hope in your next installment you do one of those routines that has white people using black shoepolish on their faces saying things like, "yess massah," and all that I'm sure it would just strictly be comedy and totally PC of anybody if they found it offensive.

Well done by many in this thread and Krazyhorse ripped you guys a new one without even trying. Why? Because you came from a weak position and deep down you know it. You don't want to see yourselves as stereotyping but we all do it and you did it REALLY BAD. I'll chalk this up to a learning experience, or maybe you'll just rebel and become even more entrenced in your beliefs.


And for the record, I didn't call Kaak a bigot.

I called him a CRACKER. ROFL!!!

Yeah, not the most mature thing to do, but if the whip fits, go on and whip it!! How's that for comedy??? Can I get a drum roll ? Cymbals? Doc? Ed?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by DaShi
Yes, we all know that. But what does it have to do with Kaak's statement?

I too was completely unprepared for that post. Whuh?

[Ted Striker]

Since some people from a certain state all seem to view this issue in a "us versus them" mentality, my observation is that this thread is divided into two camps. So I'll break it down in that "us versus them" spirit.


TEAM COOL -- Californians, second generation Americans, current immigrants to the US

TEAM CRACKER -- Texans and a couple of other elitist white guys

So, if anything, this thread has made me more stereotyped against TEXANS.

Which is sad, I always give people glowing reviews about people from Texas, how polite and kind and easy to get along with they are. Maybe it's cause I'm white, and not stealing jobs from people.

[Velociryx]

To address the "racism" charges others have made, the more significant problem, perhaps, is with the tone of the post. By portraying a fictional American "illegal" in Mexico as essentially a greedy SOB who enjoys flaunting laws and stealing from the government, it is saying quite boldly that Mexicans in America do likewise. That's the point of the satire. I do find it bigoted to propose that the illegal immigrants who come here are "thieves" acting out of malicious intent. It hearily reinforces the stereotype of Mexicans as lazy bums that are only in America because they're too lethargic to do work in Mexico. I'm not calling any specific person a racist, but the post does reinforce racist stereotypes, and when such a post is posted without comment, people will tend to assume that the poster is in tacit agreement with it, or at least sufficiently ignorant of its inherent racism to merit criticism.

The problem tho, is that the initial post "proposes" no such thing. Comedic pieces (even the ones you don't find particularly funny) are not serious debates. To take them as such....to harp on them, and the person who finds them on the 'net as being a bigot, racist, cracker, xenophobe, etc., is to ignore the fact that the piece was written in satirical, tongue-in-cheek form, using exaggeration as the mode to convey the humor. If you don't think it's funny, that's cool. Humor is subjective, and not really a subject for debate. But again, nobody took Kaak to task for the piece he posted not being funny. Instead, the very FIRST reply was to call it (and by extension, him) ignorant, and then, there was a swift degeneration into the typical name calling that accompanies anything that "the other side" don't agree with.

In short, there was an immediate and concerted effort to turn the whole thing into a witch hunt. What do you suppose the effect of such a response would be if that behavior was carried out in a comedy club, where a similar line of patter was delivered? Do you suppose people frequent comedy clubs because of their deep social relevance and their sharp philosophic debates, or is it more likely that patrons go there to get a chuckle.

Given that Kaak posted the original piece without preamble, it seems clear that he was posting it simply to share. He did NOT....specifically did not post it and say "hey! Man do I ever agree with this guy!" But you folks are treating both it, and him, as though he did. It's silly, especially in light of the fact that it's clearly a comedic piece.

BS. The OP clearly implies

For about the fifth time, it's not an OP. Jesus Christ you people are thick. Anybody can casually LOOK at the piece and its tongue-in-cheek, sarcastic construction and see that it's comedic, in the same vein as any number of Python skits (for example). If I post one here, it'd be for its comedic value, NOT because I consider it to be an "OP" The biggest clue here (besides the piece's obvious construction) is that it was posted as-is, and with no preamble. Obviously, you guys didn't find it funny, and that's fine. Except that's not what you said. In fact, that's a very different beast from what you said. It's entirely possible to find something not funny without resorting to calling the person who dared to post it (not wrote it, mind you...just posted it) an ignorant idiot, xenophobe, bigot, racist, etc. See the difference?

All it does is imply maliciousness!

Wrong. It implies humor. Humor you don't agree with, but again, nobody took him to task for the humor.

But immigrant families do not generally have an expectation that they will recieve free medical care. Most do not view it as an entitlement.

My mother has worked for county health services in California all her life, specifically for children in low income families. She knows that some - perhaps many - of the people she authorizes for tens of thousands of dollars in wheelchairs, physical therapy, and so on are illegal immigrants. She also knows from first hand experience that many of them are scared sh*tless about going into a government facility, probably thinking that CCS will turn them over to the INS. These people do not enter presuming that their needs will be taken care of by a deep-pocketed US government - some may, but certainly not the majority. Most use US government services as a last resort, because when your kid is severely handicapped and needs care, you don't have a choice.

If the OP phrased that:

"I am very poor and would like the Mexican government to help my children lead a normal life if it becomes necessary, because the US government is corrupt and can't help me, and I have nobody else to turn to."

This would not be bigoted. This would be truth. This is not:

Entirely misses the point that the piece is not astute social commentary, but written in a formulatic way meant to convey humor. Nothing more.

Very well put. Kaak, you are being willfully blind. The OP is suggesting there is an EXPECTATION of free care, as in that is the reason they are coming over to the US, because they will be on easy street.

Even you have to realize that. Even you can't have your head in the sand that far!


For the sixth time. NOT an OP. YOU are being wilfully blind by continuing to refer to it as such, but I understand. The moment it's no longer viewed as an OP, but rather as the humorous construction that it was meant to be, is the moment that your "arguments against" fall apart completely.

Unfortunately Kaak cannot look at this neutrally. I think it is why the term 'bigot' can fit for him here. He just claps along and says right on! Even though he won't admit it, it seems that he accepts the author's premist that Mexicans are coming over just to fleece the systgem.


Kaak DID look at it neutrally. It prolly gave him a chuckle, and he posted it. From the first reply, it turned into a witch hunt, and he responded to THAT. As did I....am I a bigot too?

Well done by many in this thread and Krazyhorse ripped you guys a new one without even trying. Why? Because you came from a weak position and deep down you know it. You don't want to see yourselves as stereotyping but we all do it and you did it REALLY BAD. I'll chalk this up to a learning experience, or maybe you'll just rebel and become even more entrenced in your beliefs.



Seventh time. It's a humor piece. It's got nothing to do with anyone's beliefs, or even serious debate for that matter.

So you guys didn't find it funny. That's fine.

It still don't make Kaak a bigot, or any of the other names you people threw his direction.

-=Vel=-

[Cyclotron]

Entirely misses the point that the piece is not astute social commentary, but written in a formulatic way meant to convey humor. Nothing more.

Humor is social commentary, especially when it is explicitly about current events - that's why humor is funny. As a writer, Vel, you of all people should understand the power of language, of which humor is a part. The piece, however humorous you find it, makes a political statement. No writing on current events can be apolitical.

[Velociryx]

Yes....I misspoke myself, and apologize for it. While humor IS social commentary of a sort, it is not the sort of social commentary that people take seriously--EDIT: Except on Apolyton, obviously (because seriousness is typically not a part of humor....best-seen by virtue of the fact that the Germans are often seen/portrayed as being rather dour and serious and fun is often poked at them for it)--I'm sure you've seen or heard humorous pieces of "German Comedians" delivering their patter in flat monologues....hysterical.

However, such pieces do not seriously imply that all Germans fit the stereotype, just as the first post in this thread doesn't imply with seriousness that its "charges" apply to all Mexicans.

To say that it does....to treat it as serious commentary on the state of affairs today, is to completely miss the point of the humor.

Worse, to call someone who dares post it a bigot (or worse) is to become exactly what you claim to despise.

-=Vel=-

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Velociryx
However, such pieces do not seriously imply that all Germans fit the stereotype, just as the first post in this thread doesn't imply with seriousness that its "charges" apply to all Mexicans.

To say that it does....to treat it as serious commentary on the state of affairs today, is to completely miss the point of the humor.

Of course humor isn't a "serious" commentary, because it's humorous, the very opposite of serious. That does in no way diminish the fact that making jokes - or so much as bringing them up for the perusal of others - and again, especially when they are about current events - is an inherently political act. The supposed "seriousness" of what normative commentary is for you does nothing to change that basic fact.

Worse, to call someone who dares post it a bigot (or worse) is to become exactly what you claim to despise.

That is an amazing feat of projection. Nowhere have I ever seen a definition of "bigot" that was "bigot (n): one who calls someone else a bigot." That strips all meaning from the term.

[Velociryx]

The basic fact, as far as I can see, is that Kaak posted a humor piece without pramble, because he obviously thought it was funny.

Rather than commenting on the humor (or lack of, if you didn't agree), everyone called Kaak a whole series of names....completely without basis, and solely on the fact that he posted something he found on the 'net.

I could post all of Hitler's speeches here.

Would that make me a Fascist? If not, why not?

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Case in point:

ESSEN, PARTY CONVENTION

SPEECH OF NOVEMBER 23, 1926

. . . I WAS always particularly anxious to secure that Parteitag should on principle never be used for the settlement of personal disputes. Such disputes must certainly be settled in one way or another, but just as certainly the Parteitag which once in the year should unite the whole Movement, is not the fitting day for such a settlement. Neither is it the place at which to seek to clarify unripe and uncertain ideas. Neither the length of time available at such a gathering nor its nature admits of giving to it the character of a Council. And it must never be forgotten that in all such cases or those similar to them great decisions have not been made at such Councils: on the contrary, for the most part, world-history pursues its course without paying any attention to them. World-history, like all events of historical significance, is the result of the activity of single individuals - it is not the fruit of majority decisions....
~A. Hitler (excerpted)


Since Kaak is a bigot and a racist for posting the piece he found, now I am a Fascist, right?

[Velociryx]

Commodities with definite prices present themselves under the form; a commodity A = x gold; b commodity B = z gold; c commodity C = y gold, &c., where a, b, c, represent definite quantities of the commodities A, B, C and x, z, y, definite quantities of gold. The values of these commodities are, therefore, changed in imagination into so many different quantities of gold. Hence, in spite of the confusing variety of the commodities themselves, their values become magnitudes of the same denomination, gold-magnitudes. They are now capable of being compared with each other and measured, and the want becomes technically felt of comparing them with some fixed quantity of gold as a unit measure. This unit, by subsequent division into aliquot parts, becomes itself the standard or scale. Before they become money, gold, silver, and copper already possess such standard measures in their standards of weight, so that, for example, a pound weight, while serving as the unit, is, on the one hand, divisible into ounces, and, on the other, may be combined to make up hundredweights. [5. It is owing to this that, in all metallic currencies, the names given to the standards of money or of price were originally taken from the pre-existing names of the standards of weight.
~Marx



Now I'm a Marxist-Fascist.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

THE crescent has risen. The militant Islamic group Hamas won an astonishing 76 of 132 seats in the Palestinian legislative elections this week. The United States and the European Union must finally recognize Hamas's ascendance as a fait accompli. Until now, these key third parties have equivocated: they pressed...
~Hamas Victory Speech


And now, in addition to the above, I'm obviously a dirty terrorist and a supporter of Hamas.

I just need to be shot.

-=Vel=-

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The basic fact, as far as I can see, is that Kaak posted a humor piece without pramble, because he obviously thought it was funny.

Rather than commenting on the humor (or lack of, if you didn't agree), everyone called Kaak a whole series of names....completely without basis, and solely on the fact that he posted something he found on the 'net.

First of all, the act of posting is commentary in itself. Because humor is political substance, the communication of humor is the communication of political substance. To post an article (an article which I consider to be racist) is to make a statement about that article merely by the fact that you have deemed it worthy of public attention.

Since Kaak is a bigot and a racist for posting the piece he found, now I am a Fascist, right?

I cannot recall personally calling Kaak a bigot or a racist, and I will furthermore decline to call you a fascist. That does not in any way diminish the political acts that your posts constitute, any more than my posting of political argumentation makes me a fascist.

[Velociryx]

I disagree. If I tell you a joke, I tell it not to convey a political message, but because I think I'm gonna get a laugh. Even if the joke is of a political nature, or embodyingn current events, I'm not making a social commentary in your direction, I'm telling a joke.

Humor.

Laughing.

That's my goal.

Not deep debate on the signs of the time.

As Kaak posted no commentary with the piece, then the humorous piece must be evaluated on its own and for what it is....a humorous piece.

The worst that can be said is "I didn't think it was funny."

And you'd certainly be entitled to that opinion.

But understand that your opinion still doesn't make Kaak an ignorant xenophobe, a coward, a bigot, or a racist, which has been the THRUST of the comments since his posting.

-=Vel=-

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I disagree. If I tell you a joke, I tell it not to convey a political message, but because I think I'm gonna get a laugh. Even if the joke is of a political nature, or embodyingn current events, I'm not making a social commentary in your direction, I'm telling a joke.

Vel, it doesn't matter why you tell it. It is a political act regardless of what your motives may or may not have been. That's why I don't think Kaak is a racist - I simply think he doesn't grasp the meaning of what he posted or the fact that it was intensely political.

Humor may be told "just to be funny," but it is its real commentary on society that makes it that way. And the worst that can be said in that regard is most certainly not "I didn't think it was funny."

To remove the political implications from humor or any other kind of writing, literature, or communication - when they most certainly do exist - is to do a grave disservice to both literature and your fellow citizens. It is to take the urgency and meaning out of writing.

But understand that your opinion still doesn't make Kaak an ignorant xenophobe, a coward, a bigot, or a racist, which has been the THRUST of the comments since his posting.

My opinion makes Kaak nothing. If Kaak is a xenophobe, a coward, a bigot, or a racist, he is so of his own design. And, as far as I am aware, I have only "thrusted" at the racism of the jokes, not the racism of the poster.

I'm going to bed, and that's really all I have to say on the matter anyway.