USFTA - United States Federal Travel Agency

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kaak
And it's appreciated, but reading the posts they made about how cool there were, and how they thought they were proving themselves right and winning arguements just made me realize that they either a) weren't really reading the thread or b) had completely jumped ship on logic and reason. In either case, continuing the discussion is pointless.

kaak if you haven't figured it out by now its standard form to crow about your victory all the wile looking the fool by doing so.

Regardless of reason a or b both sides do it. Just some are more obnoxius then others.

No one wins loses or ever changes their minds at 'poly. We leave that to real world experience, age and maturation* to allow those juvenile views have to come full circle when they finally meet the real world.

* One of these days I'll be able to find the last remaining missing piece of the puzzle.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

What total and utter bull****.

"It's a great thing blacks don't run this country, or else our elections would have promises of a crackwhore on every street".

What? It's just humor! It's in a satirical toungue-in-cheek form! It's not malicious at all!

You don't think George Carlin is trying to make political points with his jokes? There are number of comics who engage in political humor. This linked 'humerous piece' in the OP was entirely attempting to make a political point. Clearly.

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.

Considering other posts by him, yeah I think he completely agrees with the political point the guy was trying to make.

For about the fifth time, it's not an OP.

How in the HELL can a thread not have an Originial Post?

(PS. PWNED! )

The "voice" of the original post seemed to have expectations, and some people on this thread took the expectations of the voice, and tried to say that because he had those expectations, the illegals have that expectation. That's a pretty big jump in logic.

No, actually it very easily logically follows. That's the whole point of the piece, FFS! "Wouldn't it be funny if an American in Mexico had the same expectations of illegal Mexicans in the US?!" This obvious link was lost on you somehow? Sorry, don't buy it.

[Cyclotron]

The "voice" of the original post seemed to have expectations, and some people on this thread took the expectations of the voice, and tried to say that because he had those expectations, the illegals have that expectation. That's a pretty big jump in logic.

Yeah, I didn't notice this before, and Imran is all kinds of right. If you didn't notice this - the very obvious point of the satire - well, I'm stunned. As Imran said, that's the whole point of the piece.

[Velociryx]

Well, I came back here to ask Cyclo a question, but sure, I'll play:

Imran:
1 - Traditionally, OP = Opinion Piece, but that's cool. If you want it to mean something else, I'll defer to whatever definition you prefer. If, however, this is your definition of "pwnage" then I contend that it is a strange definition indeed.

2 - Yes...comedy can have malicious intent. can have - How precisely, this translates into Kaak being a coward, xenophobe, bigot, or racist has YET to be explained by Team PC. Just one of life's beautiful mysteries I suppose. Further, this in no way refutes the segment of my post that you quoted...that being, comedic pieces don't make serious debates (being that comedic pieces are often (typically?) satirical, exaggerated versions of reality, how anyone could take them as a serious statement of reality is....mindboggling, but I guess once you've stepped across the sanity line, all bets are off, so that's cool.

The question I came back here to ask Cyclo, however, is this.

Let us start with one of the later statements you made: "Everything is political."

I disagree with this statement for a number of reasons....not the least of which is the fact that if you apply such a generic, broad, watered down definition to a thing, then it renders the word meaningless, and eliminates all debate, but let's say, hypothetically, that I agree with the definition.

Put in even more generic terms, you seem to be postulating that "something" is a subset of "everything."

While this is certainly true, I'm not at all clear where you're going with it, or what point you mean to prove in saying as much.

So, let's use your definiton for a moment, cos I want to see where you're taking it.

Sure...let's say that everything is political.

every utterance, every word, every thought.

it's all political.

obviously then, it stands to reason that the first post of this thread, being written, is a subset of "everything" as is:

"I ate cornflakes."

or

"I need to put gas in my truck."

And?

-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes...comedy can have malicious intent. can have - How precisely, this translates into Kaak being a coward, xenophobe, bigot, or racist has YET to be explained

Isn't it quite obvious. He agreed with a malicious joke's political point. I don't buy for a second that he didn't see the political point or didn't see it was malicious.

Why don't we look at the 'black crackwhore joke'. If someone posted it without comment would we consider him to have a healthy view on blacks?

comedic pieces don't make serious debates (being that comedic pieces are often (typically?) satirical, exaggerated versions of reality, how anyone could take them as a serious statement of reality is

You are just being willfully ignorant now. I take you've never seen Penn & Teller's "Bull****"? Or "South Park"? Two examples of comedy, while using exaggerated versions of reality to make a political or social point on reality.

[Velociryx]

Isn't it quite obvious. He agreed with a malicious joke's political point. I don't buy for a second that he didn't see the political point or didn't see it was malicious.

Why don't we look at the 'black crackwhore joke'. If someone posted it without comment would we consider him to have a healthy view on blacks?


Nope. Not quite obvious.

I've not seen anywhere that Kaak said he agreed with the post. or are you assuming that because he posted it at all, he must have agreed with it?

If this is so, then I am a fascist. Earlier, I posted an excerpt from one of Hilter's speeches. If that was enough to convict Kaak in your "court" then I too, must be found guilty, yes?

You are just being willfully ignorant now. I take you've never seen Penn & Teller's "Bull****"? Or "South Park"? Two examples of comedy, while using exaggerated versions of reality to make a political or social point on reality.

Interestingly, I've never seen anyone on poly or elsewhere, watch an episode of SouthPark and rant about it, mistaking it for a statement of reality.

People either laugh or they don't. sometimes, people comment that it was in poor taste.

I don't believe I've ever seen anyone say something to the effect of "People who watch southpark are obviously bigotted individuals."

Or....perhaps I'm just not looking under enough sleezy rocks.

-=Vel=-

EDIT: Can you provide a quote of this behavior in this thread? I just re-read from the beginning, and I must be missing it (I skimmed, admittedly)

[Velociryx]

And yes, let's:

yeah, yeah, i got this from myspace....

"It's a great thing blacks don't run this country, or else our elections would have promises of a crackwhore on every street".





So? What now? I found something on the net, and I posted it.

And?

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

Vel, stop being dense. To see humour in Kaak's piece, one needs to accept certain assumptions about our society. These assumptions are ignorant and offensive (see, i.e. snoopy's post).

[Ramo]

Kaak's piece is funny only in that it demonstrates how much the right has become a parody of itself (as in Bill O'Reilly).

[Velociryx]

*shakes head*

I chuckled.

By your definition, I am a bigot and a racist.

I could tell you that I'm not until I'm blue in the face, but it would not change your mind.

I laugh at Dice Clay too, when he makes horribly sexist jokes.

This, however, does not mean that I accept "certain assumptions" about women.

I laughed at Robin Williams' skit about having sexual relations with a gorilla. Laughed until my sides hurt.

This does not mean that I advocate sex with animals.

And yet....

by your definitions, I MUST.

-=Vel=-

EDIT: If Kaak is a racist, a bigot, etc.....go back and read all the various names he was called...I'm tired of repeating them, then I must be, at a minimum, based on my postings and admissions today:

A racist, bigot, sexist, supporter of beastiality, a fascist, a marxist, and a terrorist, for I have posted quotes, or outright admitted to finding certain categories of humor funny.

True?

If they're NOT true for me (that is to say that if my actions thus far do not constitute my being any of the above), then why are they true for Kaak?

[Cyclotron]

Political implications require context as well as content. "I ate cornflakes" is not very useful to me, because it's removed from any context that would make it valuable; it's just a mundane sentence you created.

Still, if you really want to take it to absurd lengths, I'm happy to oblige!

Clearly, you were trying to come up with something bland, mundane, and clearly non-political. You decided on corn flakes and the eating thereof. This first of all indicates not only your socioeconomic position - you are able to purchase mass produced cereal, and thus clearly not starving - but it also indicates that you believe food, in this case corn flakes, is a matter trival enough that the statement of eating is the very soul of unimportantness. In the context of a society in which millions are undernourished and starving, this carries clear, if not very important, political content.

And as for "I need to put gas in my truck," that's too f*cking easy, man, especially once you pop the "need" word. You consider gas a need, and by extention your truck a need. I could point out that any political position short of radical socialism would result in your support of a society in which many people are unable to fulfill that "need," so where does that leave you? The "first world" culture of need and consumption is very much a contentious political issue.

So there. Ha!

[Velociryx]

Cyclo: Was hoping you were still around.

And yes, I intentionally chose mundane subjects for my examples, cos I was curious to see what you would do with them.

I guess what I'm driving at is, "what does the conclusion that "something" is a subset of "everything"....what does that DO for your position? It seems that if we use the definition you propose, yes, you can rightly say that under said definition, everything is political, and thus, the first post (as a subset of everything) is indeed political.

And?

-=Vel=-

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Velociryx
And?

And, if everything has political implications, stating that a joke has no political implications and is "just a [read: apolitical] joke" is clearly wrong.

It means that "jeez guys, it was just a joke" is not an acceptable argument for or defense of anything, with the sole exception of ignorance. You can't sensibly post something political (i.e., anything) and suddenly act all indignant because people are making political commentary about it.

Now, you can act indignant if people call you a racist and you don't agree with them, but as far as I'm concerned, that's neither here nor there, and not something I feel like discussing.

[Velociryx]

But you see...that's not what has been happening here.

(I happen to agree with the gist of what you are saying, even if I still don't buy that "everything is political" line)

People are NOT simply making political commentary on the original posting.

They are not why I came to the thread, or why I began posting here.

So in reality, you and I are largely (85%+) in agreement, and where we differ is at the margins, and on points that aren't directly related to the issues at hand anyways.

The REASON I came here was because people weren't making "political commentary on what was posted" but focusing on Kaak....NOT what was posted.

Kaak is a bigot. A racist. A xenophobe.

Very different animal from commenting on the political issues that come to mind when reading the piece.

I've said from the start that I don't have a problem with that (so again, we're in agreement).

But then...I strongly suspected that we were.



-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

More for Cyclo:

Tangential to the discussion above, I guess the REASON I don't agree with you that "everything is political" is that you don't agree with it either (which...oddly enough, means that we agree again)

Already, in this discussion, you have placed additional constraints on the definition (requires both context and content). Thus, if it does not meet those two criterion in tandem (writing the word "fishsticks" for example), then it cannot, by your own definition, be political.

I would contend that nearly everything can be MADE political (especially by folks with an axe to grind), but that words (or for that matter, whole statements, paragraphs, pages, and books) need not be political (example: the three books I have published, and both poetry collections I've written).

Sure, you can make "I ate cornflakes" into something political, but that's you reaching, not the statement politicizing.

Anyway, it's tangential to the core discussion, and it seems we agree on the key points. Just thought I'd bring it up (I'm typing to you while house hunting! whooohooo!)

-=Vel=-