Ann, Oh fearless warrior of forthrightness, you are my hero and exemplar. You go girl.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > > > > > ME:> > So no Ann, it is not hypocritical to make fun of religious ideas and > > still be against racist remarks. They are not the same. > > > > > ANN> Ahhh, but the agenda behind, the motivation, the hatred, the ignorance > > and the anger can be. Absolutely. And THAT is what I'm talkin' about. > > > > > > > This is the heart of it. I am not criticizing Ravi for what I am imagining > > are his feelings as you are about me. I am criticizing the content of his > > ideas. I couldn't care less what he feels about black people, I can't do > > anything about that. But I can challenge ideas he presents about them that > > I see as racist. > > Absolutely, you should bring up the subject of what you may recognize as > hateful or bigoted or stereotypically simplistic and off-base. I think it is > our responsibility to do this, especially to friends who we are more likely > to have influence on by talking about it. But this is also why others have > gotten into you a little for the song lyrics and what they actually mean or > why you would direct them at someone if, in fact, you did. My opinion on this > is marginal and I am not sure exactly what those lyrics are indicating and I > don't actually believe your motives were suspect when you directed Emily's > attention to them nor do I believe, for one second, that you support rape, > either by an individual or a group. > > > > It is the same with my satire on religion. I am not addressing what people > > feel about religion. That is their business. I am addressing what > > religions claim. I do not consider religious ideas as protected ones. > > This is a whhhoooole 'nother subject and a big one because it gets into > ideologies, beliefs that can be deeper than whether a song is talking about > rape or about mutual pleasure and it is apparent from what you have written > and how I have responded in the past to your religious subject posts that we > come from two distinct places on this. But I agree that religious ideas are > not 'protected' but what is? Any subject is open to ridicule, humour, parody. > Nothing is sacred when it comes to being satirized or derided. > > > It doesn't matter in archeology what the discoverer feels about an > > artifact. He has to make his case on the content of the ideas. > > I am not sure where this sentence falls into the discussion, but, okay. > > > > You seem unable in discussion to make this distinction between what is > > going on inside your imagination (Curtis is feeling hate and anger while > > writing) and WHAT I am actually saying. > > > > > Similarly, you give a pass on Ravi painting a picture of a whole race of > > people as having babies for food stamps while the shiftless men are in > > jail because you give more weight to what you IMAGINE is going on inside > > his feelings. So you can ignore WHAT he says because of how you feel about > > him. > > > > When it comes to racist ideas what counts to me is WHAT is said. So I > > challenged WHAT he said as an over-generalization about a race. I asked him > > to consider what percentage he believes fit his characterization. I am not > > attacking his feelings. > > Well, you can attack his feelings all you want and at the same time discuss > where they are coming from as well. I think by questioning someone's > statements you are questioning their beliefs which in turn is questioning > them as individuals. You can't really isolate one out from the other, it > comes as a package. It's just the way it is. > > > > > When I write something satirical about religion, you could go after the > > ideas and make a case for a different POV. > > > > But you don't. What you do is imagine what I am feeling and then try to > > characterize me as expression emotions you are imagining I am having. > > See above for why I disagree with this assertion of yours. > > > > You can't discuss ideas without going after me as a person, which is why we > > have so few interactions here. > > I actually really disagree with you here. It may end up feeling like I am > going after your innate personhood but remember what we believe or subscribe > to in our lives is often so closely adhered to our sense of self and the very > fabric of what we feel makes us up as human beings that it becomes difficult > to separate out when someone else questions our actions/writings/viewpoints. > I think you may be having that difficulty with me. > > Let me just say this as a general overview: I don't care what you or anyone > else believes or feels about Christ, the song or TM. But what I can object to > is how they talk about some of these things or use them to attack or > horrify/shock. I can be offended by what I feel may be crossing the line or > in bad taste (very subjective, both of these things) or just plain ignorant. > I may or may not say so at the time. Often when we bring these kinds of > objections up we are met with ugly defensiveness that closes any door to > meaningful discussion. That is not the purpose I see of this forum. I like > the chance to discuss differing outlooks and opinions but so much of it here > seems to go down the toilet bowl of reaction and negativity based on people > taking things as personal attacks when all the other guy wants to do is > discuss the differences in viewpoint. I could have a very strong opinion > about something and bring it to the attention of the writer but it is because > I want to discuss the subject. Unfortunately, some here either refuse to > discuss things at all or take the entire subject or use another subject > altogether to berate someone. Example: Nabby attempting to use his supposed > disdain of your music as a weapon against you or Steve taking Ravi's past > relationship and trying to harpoon him with it. > > Now, have you felt personally attacked in this post of mine? I certainly hope > not. If so, I will have to really examine my writing style. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I figured you'd get back to me so I guess I have to keep going with this. > > > I have snipped a bunch of the older stuff so we don't clog up the works. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula > > > > > > <chivukula.ravi@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hilarious stuff Curtis - ever ready for your hypocritical, > > > > > > > malicious, > > > > > > > devious spin aren't you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First off it was should have been quite clear that I was allowing > > > > > > > freedom > > > > > > > for artistic expression yet not supporting it as a prescription, > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > supporting the incredible lengths you go to support derogatory > > > > > > > references> to women and gang-rape. > > > > > > > > > > > > What part of the song represents a derogatory reference to woman > > > > > > and gang rape to you Ravi? Show me one line to support that > > > > > > interpretation. Even my first graders know that they have to > > > > > > support their POV with a detail from the text. Let's see if you > > > > > > can clear the first grade level bar for justifying your POV about > > > > > > the song. > > > > > > > > > > > > You have been mislead by watching Raunchy fly off the handle with > > > > > > her projections onto the characters in the lyrics haven't you? You > > > > > > really don't have anything in the actual words of the song to > > > > > > support this absurd accusation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes you spin me as an Indian Sean Hannity and not an > > > > > > > artist - an > > > > > > > Indian stand up?> > > > > > > > > > > > > Well for one thing stand-up makes the audience laugh. If you were > > > > > > going for laughter doing schtick on what a republican asshole would > > > > > > say about black people you lacked a set-up as a minimum. > > > > > > > > > > > > So is that what you are claiming about your observations about > > > > > > black people and their food stamp lov'n, baby factory ways? Was it > > > > > > a joke? > > > > > > > > > > Oh dear, I was hoping to be able to bypass this entire conversation > > > > > but it appears I need to mention just one teeny weeny reference to > > > > > your Christ spiels, be they Christmas or Easter versions. If you > > > > > want, we could start quoting and analyzing those. I think, at the > > > > > time anyway, you thought they were 'jokes', funny, creative and also > > > > > attractive to the silent lurkers/friends of yours who read FFL to see > > > > > your written gags because they are so original and hilarious. > > > > > Although I was not entirely on board with Ravi's 'observations' of > > > > > the black population in America I am not sure YOU are the one to > > > > > start pointing fingers with regard to someone else denigrating entire > > > > > populations when you appear to feel so much satisfaction at dishing > > > > > it out about Jesus, the Virgin Mary and God, for that matter. Whether > > > > > we are talking about interpreting song lyrics, discussing one's > > > > > opinions on a culture or another's 'stand up' routine about one of > > > > > the 'Holier Families' in Christian belief structure it can all come > > > > > down to a serious case of subjectivity. Just don't be a hypocrite, > > > > > that's all I'm sayin'. > > > > > > > > So you are equating my mocking beliefs in mythologies with racist > > > > comments about a group of actual people who are born into a race? You > > > > seriously can't make this distinction between ideas and people? > > > > > > Well, first of all the entire subject of mythology or not is not a > > > foregone conclusion so don't start this whole thing off asserting the the > > > entire Christ story is one big myth. If this is the premise of why you > > > don't like what I wrote then this is a bad start. > > > > > > > > Maybe this will help: > > > > > > > > Magic Jesus: Not real. Mary not a virgin. These ideas are myths and a > > > > product of creative writing not unlike my own. > > > > > > Oh, okay so you are starting with this premise and based on how and what > > > you just wrote your last couple of sentences I am not sure you are open > > > to a discussion. It is not a good omen for a dialogue between two people > > > who would otherwise like to, perhaps, exchange ideas. > > > > > > > > Being born black: very real. They can't wake up one day and say "being > > > > black is bullshit, I am not going to buy into that belief anymore and > > > > just be white now so I can get all the perks society offers them." > > > > > > Reeeeaaalllyy. I didn't realize once you were black your skin remained > > > that colour. I mean, look at Michael Jackson (not our MJ). Just pulling > > > your chain, sorry. > > > > > > > > And what does not being "entirely on board with Ravi's 'observations' > > > > of the black population in America" mean?" Were you a little on board > > > > with characterizing a whole population of real people this way? > > > > > > Curtis, you are suddenly so self righteous I just can't seem to keep a > > > straight face or get serious about this post. I had INTENDED to get > > > serious but so far you are sort of cracking me up. I know you THINK you > > > are the resident expert of black people because you live in the south but > > > come oooonnnn. > > > > > > > > My original comment linked his views with Sean Hannity who also > > > > promotes these images of black people having babies for more food > > > > stamps. It is a right wing political agenda that demonizes the poor > > > > and black people and has serious policy implications for actual > > > > families. > > > > > > Oh Curtis. > > > > > > > > So no Ann, it is not hypocritical to make fun of religious ideas and > > > > still be against racist remarks. They are not the same. > > > > > > Ahhh, but the agenda behind, the motivation, the hatred, the ignorance > > > and the anger can be. Absolutely. And THAT is what I'm talkin' about. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > < Why not allow for my artistic, provocative expression > > > > > > > similar to how you defend artistic expressions of gang-rape and > > > > > > > derogatory> objectification of women?> > > > > > > > > > > > > You are too confused about too many things here to straighten > > > > > > anything out. But again I give you the challenge to defend your > > > > > > accusations about the purpose and meaning of the song from actual > > > > > > words FROM the song. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why did your hypocritical ass not defend my attack on Indians? > > > > > > > It's > > > > > > > probably not in line with your racist, Hindu-bashing White ass is > > > > > > > it?> > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would I care how you think about Indians? I am not > > > > > > professionally preserving Indian culture, I am preserving an aspect > > > > > > of black culture. So your idiotic statements about black people > > > > > > are more interesting to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Remember Curtis baby - I can play your game better than you.> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ravi you haven't even cleared the bar of coherence, or the first > > > > > > grade level of supporting your POV about a work of fiction with > > > > > > examples from the text. Let's start there. > > > > > >
