USFTA - United States Federal Travel Agency

[Cyclotron]

Saying that a phrase, etc. is apolitical is itself a political act.

All actions have context, really. They just don't all have meaningful context. I would contend that the reason that, as you say, "anything can be made political" is that everything already is. "Politicization" is, at heart, just a recognition of the political aspect of the subject matter. Politicizing cornflakes is not terribly useful, because there's not much in the way of meaningful context, but as I demonstrated it can be done.

The very decision to speak - regardless of the subject matter - is a political act. Because politics is the "philosophy of human affairs," all human affairs are fair game. At a basic level, I believe all human affairs boil down to communication, and the natural world as we percieve it is defined (and thereby exists in a meaningful way) by our communication.

[Velociryx]

See, and I go for the more webster oriented definition of the word "political" having to to with politics itself, the government, or the state.

Not that Aristotle wasn't a smart guy, but the word itself has changed its fundamental meaning in the last couple thousand years.

At least in the way we commonly use it today.

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

Do you think it's possible for "humor" to be offensive?

[Ramo]

As for posting quotes, that's a strawman. Your intent on the Hitler, etc. quotes is clearly different from Kaak's intent on the opening post.

[Kaak]

Omar, If you think i'm a racist, then you are a fool. End of story. God i hate stupid people.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo
As for posting quotes, that's a strawman. Your intent on the Hitler, etc. quotes is clearly different from Kaak's intent on the opening post.

And so the mind police have judge juried and executedi Kaak by their superior mind reading skills.

All hail the all knowing Ramo.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo
Do you think it's possible for "humor" to be offensive?

I don't know the answer to that one. I know I have yet to find you humorous.....

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Velociryx
See, and I go for the more webster oriented definition of the word "political" having to to with politics itself, the government, or the state.

Not that Aristotle wasn't a smart guy, but the word itself has changed its fundamental meaning in the last couple thousand years.

At least in the way we commonly use it today.

This says more about the death of politics in general, as well as the lamentable continuing apolitical, apathetic technocratization of our society, than about Aristotle.

I can't speak for other politics departments at other colleges, but where I study politics, it is most certainly not limited to government and the state.

[Ramo]

Omar, If you think i'm a racist, then you are a fool. End of story. God i hate stupid people.

I didn't say that you're a racist. I said that the piece relies on ignorant, offensive (particularly xenophobic) assumptions. Reading what people say before calling them stupid is generally a good idea.

And so the mind police have judge juried and executedi Kaak by their superior mind reading skills.

All hail the all knowing Ramo.

Kaak thought the his piece made an amusing point. Vel's Hitler's quote was intended to prove an irrelevent point about endorsing quoted pieces. Entirely different intents. It doesn't take a mind-reader to figure that out, but it does take a modicum of common sense.

I don't know the answer to that one. I know I have yet to find you humorous.....

And exactly when I did provide you any reason to think that I give two ****s about your opinion?

[Kaak]

I didn't say that you're a racist. I said that the piece relies on ignorant, offensive (particularly xenophobic) assumptions. Reading what people say before calling them stupid is generally a good idea.

Then you should read what i wrote. it was an if/ then statement

But I don't think the piece is based on ignorant or offensive *assumptions*, I think it comes from exagerrated experiences and observations. I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

Btw, I am going to show this to some of my mexican friends and ask them if they think that it displays any zenophobia or anything else...

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Funny that Ted still thinks he can call people racists after saying retarded cap like this.

Ironic, isn't it?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Kaak

It is really sad that people will try to make something into something it isn't, go on a witch hunt,

ROFL


More irony right?


Here we have a fully fledged group of TEAM CRACKER who have gone on a witch hunt against illegal immigrants, but can't take the heat when someone collects THEM all into one group and hurls venom back their way. Doesn't matter what their individual beliefs or situations are, they are a part of TEAM CRACKER and dammit all TEAM CRACKER are racists.

They are taking our jobs! Clogging our hospitals! Those bastards! Oh wait I got it mixed up that's not TEAM CRACKER!!!

I suggest covering up the mirrors in your houses.

I'm glad to see my stereotypes and generalizations against you guys and have taught you guys a few lessons.

Yes, YOU GUYS, the non-"us," the "them" I so despise.

TEAM CRACKER ftw!!!!!!

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Tuberski

According to Ted Strike et al, Carlos Mencia is a racist even against Mexicans.

I never commented on your post. But thanks for the strawman.

btw, Ted, I lived in San Diego for 4 years, it's just as "bad" as Texas is when it comes to illegal immigrants.

And you don't live here now.

Next !

[Velociryx]

Nothing new here.

I see that Ramo has no answer to the questions, "am I a bigot, racist and sexist" for finding humor in Dice Clay and Williams' skits, and if not, then how Kaak could possibly be (given that by his own definition, either we both must be).

No surprise there tho. Often, when confronted with the enormous holes in their "logic" the other side willl backpedal, ignore, name-call, or focus on irrelevant aspects of what someone posted (like KH's two page rant on the word 'elocution'). This is far, far easier, and requires less thought than actually addressing the underlying problem with the other side's argument.

I understand the attraction.

Perhaps, however, if the other side's argument wasn't so completely laughable, it would be easier to defend.

I also observe that Imran has yet to produce a quote from Kaak in this thread that proves his point.

Again, no surprise.

"Strawman" is the third most used term by the side losing the argument. When Bigot and Racist won't quite do, out comes Strawman.

Unfortunately, in this case, that won't do either, because if it is true that Kaak can be termed a racist simply by posting the first post on this thread, then it must, by that definition, also be true that my posting of a Hitlerean excerpt make me fascist.

Ted's strategy is somewhat different, and I applaud it. He makes a mockery of the whole process, poking fun at both sides, tho at one a bit more ardently than the other. It's a good read, and as always, I give Ted a
The "pot calling the kettle black" approach evokes a smile, as always, although it too, provides no clear indication why the simple act of posting something = belief in, or utter acceptance of the position of that which is posted. Nor does it explain by what witchery a comedic piece can be seen as a bedrock statement of reality, but....since those questions HAVE no good answers, I understand why.

So....to sum up, based on the responses from Team PC, the position seems to be something like this:

"We don't know why Vel's not a sexist for finding Dice Clay funny, and Kaak IS a racist for posting this humor piece, and it's too hard to nail down the reasons. We simply intuitively, by magic, know it to be true, and we resent the intrusions of anybody who comes in to horn in our our witch hunt. We don't want to think, we just want to call names, sling mud, and throw terms around that don't apply in this case."

And with that understanding, please, carry on.

Cyclo: I know what you're saying, but....language happens. It evolves. And based on the use of the word "poltics" and "political" as it has appeared by other folks in this thread, it seems clear that the more narrow definition is the one en vogue here.

I'm willing to be mistaken on that point, but the evidence seems to point in that direction.

-=Vel=-

EDIT: Unlike you, Ramo, I will actually answer your questions.

Do you think it's possible for "humor" to be offensive?

Irrelevant to the initial point I raised, and to the reason that prompted my first comment, but I'll answer it anyways. Yes. Humor can be offensive. Please explain to me how posting a piece of humor makes someone a bigot, racist, etc.

Also, please return the favor and answer the following question, posted earlier: IF it is true that finding something humorous requires "accepting certain assumptions about our society" (your words, from earlier), and I admit to chuckling at the posted piece, laughing at Dice Clay jokes, and howling with laughter til tears were streaming down my face at the Williams' "sex with a gorilla" skit, then by your definitions, does this not mean that I accept the assumptions that go into those pieces of humor as well (that would make me, as pointed out, a racist, bigot, sexist, and supporter of beastiality).

If you do NOT think I am any of those things (even tho I have met the criterion you set forth in your own definition), please explain the difference between me and Kaak (that is, why am I NOT those things, but Kaak is).

Thank you.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo


Kaak thought the his piece made an amusing point. Vel's Hitler's quote was intended to prove an irrelevent point about endorsing quoted pieces. Entirely different intents. It doesn't take a mind-reader to figure that out, but it does take a modicum of common sense.

Ahhh I see. Due to your incredible super powers of common sense (a power you have yet to ever display in these forums for the record) you can judge kaak's intent.

Kudos to you ohhh Ben Franklin turned Jeanne Dixon or vice versa.

Personally given that I don't have these far reaching psychic abilities, my use of common sense is to rely on first hand testimony. Such as lsitening to kaak say he thought the piece was funny and get this not (at least to his mind) attempting to convey racist messages. Others interpretations are all well and good, but I believe there is plenty of room to say the written/spoken language is open to different interpretations and that the message is as much if not moreso determined by the listener (forgive me my use of speech references in the networld ) as it is the author/orator. So if the listener lives in a world of innocence and determines no malign purpose in what he reads that then defines him as a racist??

Which then gets back the question of intent. What is the authors intent? What was kaaks intent?

Well by using that tremendous faculty of common sense we have to use the evidence at our disposal to determine both. Actually scrath that the point of authors intent is rather immaterial because the real issue at hand is the malign treatment of Kaak and what Kaak's intent was. Do you have evidence of kaak's bigotry save his feeling that the post was marginally humorous. The answer is a huge freakin NO. What we instead have is kaak repeatedly stating for the bazilllionth time that the piece was viewed merely as a humor piece and that guess what he didn't infer jack about it with respect to any minority group, go figure. So we have a he said/he said situation. No proof no evidence therefore the accused is found not guilty. (You may want to follow on grounds that kaak is not as "worldly" and "oohhh sooooo sensitive to minority issues" but that is a completely different kettle of fish then implying bigotry, xenophobia, and racism. But given the extremely poor arguing the PC police's prosecution team has made so far I advise y'all to simply lick your wounds and go home.)

The defense moves to have countersuit against the prosecution for spurious accusation.

And exactly when I did provide you any reason to think that I give two ****s about your opinion?

Given you respond to said opinions.....