All Whites are racist, Men sexist, and Straights homophobes.

[Drifterwood]

As my friends know, I am a wife-beating, gay-bashing member of the KKK. In my spare time I also like to hate Jews, bash America and I do a fairly good line in Snobby British Imperialist.

I am justified because you want to cut my jewels off, sneer at my dress sense, laugh at my attempts to dance, snigger at my dental challenges and you killed the only real friend I ever had.

Perhaps my humour is misplaced to introduce the serious nature of this thread. Perhaps though we all need to lighten up a bit as well. I am a white, middle aged (now 40), straight male brought up in the western christian culture, and if I was so minded I could look at everything nasty in the world and believe what some people are seeming to say and accept that it is all my fault.

The counter revolution to everyone else's rights but my own, is for me to find my own victimhood. That woman is sexist, that black man racist, that gay a heterophobe etc etc. This is bullshit. No doubt some do push the pendulum too far, they can not allow the revolution to stop, because without it they have no purpose. Thanks Robespierre (bloody frenchie).

I appreciate that some will be sick of us discussing NJ, but I believe we see a victim (oh god) of the counter revolution of victimhood. And I wonder if the perpertrator's victimhood is the new weapon of control against which she was venting. Shit, you used to just be allowed to control me, now you control me by being the victim of my positive affirmation.

Do you see what I am saying?

 

[Gillette]

I appreciate that some will be sick of us discussing NJ, but I believe we see a victim (oh god) of the counter revolution of victimhood. And I wonder if the perpertrator's victimhood is the new weapon of control against which she was venting. Shit, you used to just be allowed to control me, now you control me by being the victim of my positive affirmation.

Do you see what I am saying?

No. Though I do think I get what you're hinting at and if it's what I suspect I disagree.

Could you make it a little less convoluted?

 

[Drifterwood]

Could you make it a little less convoluted?

NJ's Shani thread was a perfectly acceptable bit of flagwaving for a group that has every right to affirm itself.

For questionable reasons, imo, it was turned on its head to attempt to show her pride as racism. This could be seen as another method of control. Cracking the whip, one might say.

I am asking whether this counter victimhood tactic is used in other areas?

 

[cdarro]

I agree with what you're saying about white anglo-saxon protestant males being now regarded as the root of all evil (that is the gist of the first part of your post, isn't it?) but after that I have no idea what you're talking about. Who or what is NJ?.

 

[Drifterwood]

what is NJ?.

Many have wondered. :smile:

Sorry, Principessa. She exacts her racist revenge on white men by fucking them.

 

[Xcuze]

Sorry, Principessa. She exacts her racist revenge on white men by fucking them.

For once, you made me laugh. :tongue:

And many a true word spoken in jest.

 

[Gillette]

NJ's Shani thread was a perfectly acceptable bit of flagwaving for a group that has every right to affirm itself.

For questionable reasons, imo, it was turned on its head to attempt to show her pride as racism. This could be seen as another method of control. Cracking the whip, one might say.

Clever phrasing. You're pushing the bounds of credibility with that. Turned on it's head? Really?

One response expresses pride of Shani as an American, one points out the dichotomy of the article' focus and NJ's focus, the third mentions the indoor nature of rinks making ice available in Texas as it is elsewhere and expresses his opinion on her racial focus. Three replies, only two actively expressing opposing thoughts. If you truly feel that was sufficient provocation to mitigate her using racial slurs then you are not as balanced as you would have us believe.

I am asking whether this counter victimhood tactic is used in other areas?

When did you stop beating your wife?

In order to answer whether it's used in other areas I have to acknowledge it as being a tactic, which I don't.

The article says that "This time, he simply wanted to be known for his skating. Period." Yet her first words are "a black man". It might seem counterintuitive to ignore the wishes of someone you're proud of and it was questioned... and not just by a white person. He won Olympic Gold for America, not just for African America.

As a black American I have a right to claim him and be proud just like I have a right to disown OJ Simpson, Michael Vick, and Mike Tyson. They might be my color but they ain't my kind.

Does the fact that he's black mean white Americans aren't allowed to feel the same sense of pride in his win?

The biggest failure of separate but equal was the separation. In this thread she pushes the distinction to the fore, "claiming" him for black "kind", separate from whites. For someone opposed to racism, claiming someone based on race is counterproductive. She was called on it by both skin tones.

All y'all crackers can kiss my ass. :irked:

I'd be curious to hear how you place her flinging a racial epithet at others under the heading of positive self affirmation.

First though I'd like you to note that the term is pluralized. Given the posts in the thread up to that point I think you'll understand why I dismiss the possibility she used "cracker" as a Shakespearian reference to boastfulness. That leaves the racially charged form which is bad enough for having been used by someone who decries the use of racially charged insults but there's another level to it. Lemon is white, he has a gallery so we know that. Pauligan, unbeknownst to her is not white, yet she includes him in the insult. Why does she do that unless she assumes he's white also and why would she assume that? Because only a white person would think the win was more about national pride than racial pride? Wouldn't such an assumption be considered racist?

Let me put it this way, had a white American started a thread about a gold medal being won by a white athlete, made a point of mentioning the athlete's race and claimed the athlete as his "kind" NJ would have shouted the house down for it being racist. This cannot be honestly denied by anyone remotely familiar with her post history.

It is hypocritical and ineffective to bitch about inequality while exercising a double standard on the same issue.

In short, nobody from her first post to her racially charged insult claimed victimhood, hence your tactic falls flat. No "crack of the whip", as you say, to justify her use of the term.

But nice try.

 

[Drifterwood]

GAY CANADIAN MAN WINS BOXING GOLD

I suppose if such an article appears and I were a gay Canadian man and I wished to flagwave even if the medallist had said it isn't about being gay, it isn't about being a man and it isn't about being Canadian, but I wanted to, then I would be a sexist racist heterophobe?

This is the logic of what you have been saying for several days now.

If you think that I am sexist and you call me a pig, does that make you sexist? No, you use a word that is meant as an insult. But pig is sexist because it is only aimed at men. This is the argument that you are using to condemn her as racist. Shall we trawl the Women's Issue Forum and look for every incidence where a woman has used a gender specific slur against a man?

One response expresses pride of Shani as an American, one points out the dichotomy of the article' focus and NJ's focus, the third mentions the indoor nature of rinks making ice available in Texas as it is elsewhere and expresses his opinion on her racial focus. Three replies, only two actively expressing opposing thoughts. If you truly feel that was sufficient provocation to mitigate her using racial slurs then you are not as balanced as you would have us believe.I'd be curious to hear how you place her flinging a racial epithet at others under the heading of positive self affirmation.

She has every right to flagwave his colour irrespective of the Athlete's wishes and the article's line.

Because only a white person would think the win was more about national pride than racial pride? Wouldn't such an assumption be considered racist?

I'll bet you that NJ was proud of both, but the colour of the athlete is rather more unusual than his nationality.

Let me put it this way, had a white American started a thread about a gold medal being won by a white athlete, made a point of mentioning the athlete's race and claimed the athlete as his "kind" NJ would have shouted the house down for it being racist. This cannot be honestly denied by anyone remotely familiar with her post history.

There is a very very big difference between promoting supremacy and reclaiming some affirmation.

It is hypocritical and ineffective to bitch about inequality while exercising a double standard on the same issue.

It is not a double standard.

I don't know Lemon's interaction history with NJ - but why go piss on her parade? Why? It is very important and mitigates a pissy reaction.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr....
All I'm going to say is that despite your grievances with NJ, it's a little shameful to watch people twist her statements to make her seem like she was a victim. If she hated white men in the same way that you're now describing them, she would NEVER have sex with them out of "revenge". I dunno... just doesn't sound like something most people would do.

NJ and I had very similar backgrounds, so I know where she was coming from when she spoke. She may have crossed the line here and there with her statements, however, in no way was she suggesting that all white men were evil. But don't expect anyone to ignore history just so that you can be excused for your own sentiments if they share some level of parallel. Dare I say it, but many people on this board don't even realize when they're making a racist comment anymore. Is it the fault of someone else if they point that out or get offended by that? God forbid if they talk about it.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

VB - you're completely misreading Drifter. Please re-read his post in the light that he thinks NJ is not racist and that she should not have been banned.

 

[Drifterwood]

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr....
All I'm going to say is that despite your grievances with NJ, it's a little shameful to watch people twist her statements to make her seem like she was a victim. If she hated white men in the same way that you're now describing them, she would NEVER have sex with them out of "revenge". I dunno... just doesn't sound like something most people would do.

With all due respect, if you are referring to my comments, you have completely missed the point (and intended irony) of what I am saying.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

With all due respect, if you are referring to my comments, you have completely missed the point (and intended irony) of what I am saying.

Oh no... I didn't miss the irony here at all. I'm just saying that despite her bad selection of words on certain comments, she wasn't saying anything that was either untrue or not harbored in the minds of some people on this board. If anything, she may have been a little too raw with her assessments.

In some way, I think we're agreeing here?

 

[Drifterwood]

In some way, I think we're agreeing here?

Surely you're not suggesting that people would do a drive-by shitting on a subject that someone might hold dear, pour petrol on the thread, bait them into a response and then run all hurt to the Moddiewoddies? :wink:

 

[helgaleena]

Moddiwoddies!!! Waaaah! Drifter said he's racist and I can't tell if he's being sarcastic or not!

Let's everybody enjoy Tom of Finland and his artistic contributions to the acceptance of large penis?

Elisa - My reviews and Ramblings - Tom of Finland: The Most Influential Creator of Gay Pornographic Images Tuoko worked for the majority of his life in an ad agency but followed his muse to celebrations of egaggerated masculinity that happen to be male/male. I still think they are way sexy. Though he restricts his earlier stuff to farmboys from Bothnia, by the end of his life he also included other yummy ethnicities.

 

[Snakebyte]

Surely you're not suggesting that people would do a drive-by shitting on a subject that someone might hold dear, pour petrol on the thread, bait them into a response and then run all hurt to the Moddiewoddies? :wink:

Pardon me if I defend Lemon here but he and the moderators stated that he did not complain about anything. Just in case this was the meaning, elsewhise pardon me again. :smile:
I neither know NJ nor Lemon. But I followed the discussion and some tend to saint NJ and demonise Lemon. In my book that's crap. The mods stated that NJ was barned and/or banned several times. I think it's pretty amusing that most of the defenders just concentrate on the straw to break the camel's back.
Anyway I like your post Drifter.

edit: Did I just write barned? Of course it should be "warned"

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Surely you're not suggesting that people would do a drive-by shitting on a subject that someone might hold dear, pour petrol on the thread, bait them into a response and then run all hurt to the Moddiewoddies? :wink:

Several mods pointed out that NJ's ban was not based solely on a single post, and blaming Lemon is erroneous. Not to mention your characterisation of what happened is highly dubious.


OT. There is a fundamental difference between being proud of the achievements of someone with whom one has much in common and expressing that pride as a form of chauvinism.

On a personal level it does please me when a gay person succeeds in their chosen field on a level which attracts widespread admiration and respect, because for generations gay people have been despised pretty universally and marginalised and ignored.

However, this pleasure is not a pleasure which would drive me to wave rainbow flags and tout this person's achievements as a gay person. This pleasure is derived from knowing that gradually some societies are beginning to recognise the achievements of people regardless of their sexuality and that at some point it will hopefully be totally unremarkable that a person who achieves success is homosexual, and that such pointless distinctions will no longer be needed,

So would I personally start a thread with the title "Gay man wins medal at the Winter Olympics!!" no I wouldn't, and exactly because to do so would be utterly counterproductive to the aim of making gay people's success and contribution to society and culture remarkable purely for its outstanding nature rather than for the fact that they happen to be gay.

If I succeed in life personally do I want people to think "wow, a gay man who is successful, how amazing!" NO I DO NOT. I want people to respect my successes as an individual, based on their merits relative to any of my contemporaries. To view my personal success as the success of a gay man is to presume that it is some how remarkable for a gay man to succeed, essentially saying that being gay is an active handicap to success, indicating a continued negative discrimination against being gay.

If I collude in that misapprehension I compound it rather than working against it. Therefore if I make public show of the successes of anyone based on the fact that they are gay not only do I cheapen and traduce that person's success I undermine the possibility that at some point this person's sexuality will be unremarkable and that they will be admired purely for their achievements as a human being.

 

[Drifterwood]

Pardon me if I defend Lemon here but he and the moderators stated that he did not complain about anything. Just in case this was the meaning, elsewhise pardon me again. :smile:

Several mods pointed out that NJ's ban was not based solely on a single post, and blaming Lemon is erroneous. Not to mention your characterisation of what happened is highly dubious.

Pardonned both. This was not aimed at Lemon - the wink was to Vinyl.

There is a history of what I said being alleged to have happened many times on this site, often with the recipient being banned for rising to the sometimes subtle provocation.

It has happened to me in a small way and I was happy to ignore it. It goes with the territory of putting your head above the parapet. You will see that a lot of interesting (if provocative) posters have been banned over the years.

You can read this thread to see how to ignore little ad hominem tweaks.

 

[Drifterwood]

If I collude in that misapprehension I compound it rather than working against it. Therefore if I make public show of the successes of anyone based on the fact that they are gay not only do I cheapen and traduce that person's success I undermine the possibility that at some point this person's sexuality will be unremarkable and that they will be admired purely for their achievements as a human being.

I don't disagree. It would be my ideal as well, but then I happen to like the human interest side of someone succeeding in the face of any form of adversity.

But this wasn't the point of this thread.

If I said something that you felt to be homophobic and in having a go at me for it, you used a derogatory term for a breeder , would that make you the person who was demonstrably prejudiced based on orientation? Is it then right for me to become the victim of discrimination?

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I don't disagree. It would be my ideal as well, but then I happen to like the human interest side of someone succeeding in the face of any form of adversity.

But this wasn't the point of this thread.

If I said something that you felt to be homophobic and in having a go at me for it, you used a derogatory term for a breeder , would that make you the person who was demonstrably prejudiced based on orientation? Is it then right for me to become the victim of discrimination?

Oh I see oops. Apologies for the misfire :redface:

Erm yes of course it is reasonable for you to claim the insult and to feel aggrieved at being called a Breeder by me no matter what the circumstances.

I cannot campaign and work in my own life towards equality and at the same time expect special treatment when I discriminate against others.

Being gay does not give me a right to be bigoted just because some people are bigoted and discriminate against gay people. Equality isn't about taking revenge for the ills done to me or other gay people down the ages, and Homosexuals are as responsible for their behaviour and attitudes (equally so in fact) as anyone else is. This is crucial in trying to understand the issue of equality.

The point is that ultimately who we sleep with, what colour our skins our, what genitals we have etc. are all immaterial, and we should treat one another as equal regardless of these factors.

The fact that gay people have been viciously persecuted for as long as anyone can remember does not give me the right to become a persecutor or a bigot if my contention is that no one should have the right to persecute me for my sexuality. If we are equal (and I believe we are) then the knife cuts both ways in terms of being responsible for how we behave and the attitudes we evince towards one another.

 

[midlifebear]

Well! (huff, huff, huff!) Now I'M insulted, because I had been led to believe that all gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered are only responsible for of the supremely christianist worlds moral depravity, racism, and the general decline of humanity.

Now I'm just mad and confused!
:Thinkingof_: