Pharyngula

Posted by: Matt H. | August 26, 2009 7:35 AM

I didn't like his support for the IRA (a terrorist organisation... regardless of what you might think of their goals, they killed civilians to do it).

Posted by: Matt H. | August 26, 2009 7:42 AM

Whoops, sorry, I didn't know he snubbed Gerry Adams back in 2005 and criticised the Provisional IRA. I take back what I said regarding his so-called support for the IRA, what I said was out of rumour-fed ignorance.

I didn't know much about the man but it seemed like he had a lot of good ideas. A shame he didn't live for a few more years.

Posted by: Matt Heath | August 26, 2009 7:47 AM

Heh that's why i love this place. People retract stuff when they are demonstrably wrong

Posted by: Josh | August 26, 2009 7:52 AM

Sad news indeed. One of the saddest aspects (for me) is that, despite working on it for decades, he didn't live to see real health care reform happen.

Posted by: MadScientist | August 26, 2009 7:56 AM

So much for that generation of Kennedys in politics. He was certainly an interesting character and he and his brothers were certainly determined to make their marks on the USA. Am I just biased or did the news feature far more about his private life than his politics? I vaguely recall stories rivalling the gossip about Nelson Rockefeller but I can't recall his political achievements.

Posted by: Fil | August 26, 2009 7:57 AM

I'm trying to decide whether I give a toss about someone as rich and shifty as a Kennedy falling off his bridge.

I don't like political dynasties and I trust politicians about as much as I do my lawyer's pit bull. But no man is an island and Ted especially failed getting from one to another, which describes me too (and probably us all) at times. So, crap jokes aside, I don't hold being human and scared against the man.

Meh, so PZ has started a thread about it and has the grace to admire what Ted stood for (if indeed Ted did believe his own rhetoric).

It's so hard when you don't know someone, so powerful and rich, personally.

The cosmos is infinite, in all senses of the word, so the man may not be not truly dead. Whatever, thanks Ted, for trying to help us all. Stuck with a clan of rich bastards you may have been, but I think you may just may have truly cared. Indeed a brush with mortality and shame I believe may have caused you to shrug off the "right to rule" mentality (of a Bush say) and underpinned your work for humanity in all those many years left to you.

May we both have the opportunity to look perplexed at each other in another cosmos.

Vale.

Posted by: hyoid | August 26, 2009 7:57 AM

Rumor-fed ignorance; there's a lot of that goin' around.

Posted by: PaulH | August 26, 2009 8:04 AM

I'm one of those who isn't too disappointed to see Kennedy go, even though I supported many of his policies, because of his support for the IRA. The reason that his snubbing of Adams was such a big deal was precisely because he was such a supporter up to that time. I've no idea if he actually raised money for the IRA (though I'd guess not), but he was clearly a supporter.

Posted by: John | August 26, 2009 8:11 AM

Fil said

I'm trying to decide whether I give a toss about someone as rich and shifty as a Kennedy falling off his bridge.

Because, of course, the amount of money someone has is an important indicator of their worth as a person, isn't it, with no-one of any moral value having two brass cens to rub together.

Oh, wait, hang on, that's not right. What I actually meant to say is that it is sickening to see someone allocating the worth of a man based on so base a measure of his wealth.

I disagreed, strongly, with the man's politics, as he helped the IRA to be seen as respectable, and so he helped them to raise funds for terrorism (they have killed people I knew), but like to think that this is a slightly more healthy view than "Whatever, he was rich, so worth less as a person than me".

Posted by: NewEnglandBob | August 26, 2009 8:22 AM

Fil, you are as far from reality as anyone could possibly get. Here is a man who could have just skidded along, enjoying his family wealth, but he spent his life fighting for issues he deemed important to the average person.

I have been lucky to have this man represent me for the last 40 years I have lived here. Putting aside his specific political views, he compromised and negotiated with all political views and was admired by most of his colleagues in both parties, including Ronald Reagan, his political opposite.

Posted by: Walton | August 26, 2009 8:25 AM

Why is it suddenly OK, just because Kennedy was a liberal, to simply brush off his actions at Chappaquiddick as part of a "reckless personal life"? Driving drunk, leaving the scene of a car accident and leaving a woman to die are not simply personal matters. They are crimes, for which he was prosecuted and (albeit very lightly) sentenced.

And the policies he supported, while well-meaning, were and are profoundly damaging. Like FDR and JFK, he was a scion of a wealthy dynasty, who never had to generate his own wealth in a free market by providing profitable goods and services; accordingly, it is no surprise that he supported anti-business and anti-free-market policies.

Posted by: R. Schauer | August 26, 2009 8:28 AM

Teddy had some right ideas about the direction of our country. My only wish is that he wasn't a cracker-lovin' Roman Catholic.

Posted by: Ray Moscow | August 26, 2009 8:29 AM

@20, Hank:
"Just coincidentally, I was looking at Martha's Vineyard on Google Earth last night, thinking about the Chappaquiddick incident and wondering just where it had happened.

"And ... cue the winger jackals -- Rush, Bill, Michelle, Glenn -- to tear apart Teddy Kennedy on TV and radio for the next several weeks."

Just like they went on and on about Laura Bush running a stop sign and killing a guy.

Remember that? Geez, me neither.

Posted by: Dave Blake | August 26, 2009 8:35 AM

So what happens to his Senate seat?

Posted by: Dianne | August 26, 2009 8:38 AM

Glioblastoma (the disease Kennedy died of) is a lousy disease with lousy treatment and totally crappy outcomes. I kind of hope that the Kennedys will set up some sort of private foundation to fund research into the etiology and treatment of glioblastoma in memory of Teddy. Far too late to help him, obviously, but there's lots of people out there with it still alive. (And, no, it's not caused by cell phones.)

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 26, 2009 8:41 AM

Walton,

When Elizabeth Windsor dies, I will be tearing apart her carcass here on Pharyngula. Be sure to drop by and watch. Maybe if I'm lucky I'll get some LaRouchie buzzards to squabble with.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 26, 2009 8:44 AM

he was a scion of a wealthy dynasty, who never had to generate his own wealth in a free market by providing profitable goods and services; accordingly, it is no surprise that he supported anti-business and anti-free-market policies. - Walton

You're a moron Walton; and I mean that most sincerely. Support for right-wing economic policies increases steadily as you look at richer and richer people; and most of these people owe their wealth in considerable part to inheritance.

Posted by: littlejohn | August 26, 2009 8:47 AM

Wait a minute. Why are so many of you assuming Kennedy was drunk when he had a tragic accident at Chappaquiddick? You folks are always demanding evidence with regard to things like creationism. Why do you uncritically buy into the rumor that he wrecked and left the scene because he was drunk?
Show me the evidence. Show me the sobriety test he failed. You can't. You simply assume the worst.
Some of his friends, speaking on background of course, said they encouraged Kennedy to delay reporting the accident because he suffered a head injury in the wreck and was incoherent as a result. Kennedy had presidential aspirations at the time, and any sign of mental instability would have been political suicide. (Remember Vice President Thomas Eagleton?)
Witnesses at the party prior to the accident swore Kennedy was sober.
Any other assumption, given the lack of evidence, is, well, unscientific. I expected more of Pharyngulalites.
BTW, given all the references to drinking at this site, including some by Professor Myers, why was Kennedy's lifestyle called "reckless"? Pot, meet kettle. Can't we honor the man's life without insulting him?

Posted by: BMcP | August 26, 2009 9:05 AM

#30

During the 2004 Pres. campaign, when Romney was Gov and it looked like Kerry might have a shot at winning, the legislature changed state law so that a special election will need to be held. I don't think they've re-changed it since then.

This is still true, although Kennedy, around a month ago, asked that the law be reverted. The Massachusetts legislature has balked at the idea, and the law requiring a special election to fill a vacant Senate seat still stands.

Posted by: HombreMoleculos | August 26, 2009 9:06 AM

#27

There will be a special election in 145-160 days to determine a successor. The succession law was recently changed so that Governor Patrick cannot simply name a successor.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 26, 2009 9:10 AM

How very Christian of you Shaun.

Posted by: Thunderbird5 | August 26, 2009 9:13 AM

Littlejohn @35
Re your perplexed little BTW: because a Pot never advocates a Kettle climbing into a motor and skids off a bridge after having a skinful.

Any more Richards* incoming?

Posted by: Matt H. | August 26, 2009 9:14 AM

@Mrs. Tilton #18

Yes, I agree. His support for Irish republicanism is what confused me to think he might be an IRA sympathiser, and indeed it does seem he was one in his earlier years - telling the British to 'go home', etc. But he did the right thing in 2005... better late than never. He recognised Gerry Adams for what he was, and the Provisional IRA for what they were... no, I don't think he was pro-IRA, although he did make many gaffs regarding Northern Ireland (such as the soldier incident you mentioned).

Posted by: Kane Gruber, FCD | August 26, 2009 9:18 AM

Hey, Shaun: did your mother have any children who lived?

Posted by: Stellar Moose | August 26, 2009 9:24 AM

Shaun, Jesus was a total liberal dude. He believed in paying taxes and ran on a New Deal platform.

Posted by: JBlilie | August 26, 2009 9:25 AM

Shaun: Matt 25:31-46

Posted by: JBlilie | August 26, 2009 9:37 AM

"The attempt to put Caroline Kennedy in the Senate because of her last name was the most appalling thing in recent political favoritism."

Agreed.

Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 26, 2009 9:40 AM

A true politician has passed away. Never cared for the man and never cared for his politics. At least in the last thirty years of his life he became his own man and not just the dumb younger brother of John and Robert. Of course histories will be written and I hope Ted will not be over mythologized or over demonized.

Posted by: Paul Browne | August 26, 2009 9:45 AM

Matt H. #45, as my earlier post (#22) makes clear Ted Kennedy was an active opponent of IRA terrorism from at least the early 1970's.

I grew up in Dublin and can assure you that the overwhelming majority in the Republic of Ireland, while in many cases supporting the principle of an United Ireland (though I'm personally ambivalent), were opposed to IRA (and INLA,IPLO etc.) terrorism. It would not be overstating it to say than myself and many other Irish people considered the IRA to be at best fascists and at worst traitors who betrayed the Irish people with every murder and atrocity they claimed in our name (remember Bono's "Fuck the Revolution" in 1987?). I suspect that a lot of Irish Americans felt the same way, probably the majority by the early 1990's. Ted Kennedy helped to undermine support for terrorism and decrease the flow of funding to the IRA (who then turned to the Libyans, but that's another story).

Ted Kennedy made mistakes, and on Northern Ireland he certainly wasn't always right, but when you look at the sum total of his actions and statements it's very clear that where the "troubles" are concerned he was one of the good guys.

Posted by: Fil | August 26, 2009 9:54 AM

How many here remember where they were when Jack Kennedy was assassinated? Were you even alive? Or your parents?

I was playing down the side of the house when my my mother rushed out in tears to tell me he had been shot. Mom was a Catholic, as was I in those days. It was a big deal that a Mick could be the President, even though we were Australians, not Americans.

I was eleven years old.

Later, in 1969, I watched Neil Armstrong walk on the moon. Probably the most impressive damn thing I've ever seen an American do, or any one else do in my lifetime for that matter. Jack made that happen.

I also watched Jack brother, Robert, lying stunned in a pool of black blood (b&W tv) with a bullet wound to his head on that hotel floor.

And now finally Ted is dead as well.

Lots of memories. The assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald getting shot in the guts. The bridge.

Some people here knew Ted. Some people respected him and admired his politics. He was their Senator.

I used to be a liberal voter. Now I'm older and more cynical and I vote Green maybe or not at all.
I'm a student of history, waiting for my time to become a footnote too. Don't get me wrong though. If Ted was a good man and believed what he said then I'm all for it.

I may have some problems with his knowledge of the Troubles in Northern Ireland though. I know and knew quite a few IRA guys personally and I have to say they were/are mostly a bunch of dumb thugs. I hope he wasn't sucked in by that.

Whatever. I'm just sitting here thinking about things and I don't want people to think that I'm such an old curmudgeon that I'm not human or care about Ted's passing. I'm just very cynical these days.

Lot of memories. Sorry for the rant.

Posted by: Dave | August 26, 2009 10:01 AM

As another poster mentioned, Teddy's seat will be filled via special election in about 5 months. Kennedy requested that the law be changed so that his seat could be filled immediately upon his death. The legislature balked initially but now it's looking as though the House and Senate leaders might go along with a revision that would allow the governor to name an interim replacement, someone who'd only serve between the time he (or she) is named and the special election. If this goes through, most likely the interim replacement would not be allowed to run in the special election.

Boston media is going to be "All Ted, All The Time" for some days, I have no doubt. I wasn't a great admirer of Ted Kennedy's personal life. I never met him, though I did once see him on a shuttle flight from Boston to Washington. But he was one of the really major senators of all time in terms of his legislative record. It's a shame he never managed to get health care through, and without him, its prospects have dimmed.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 26, 2009 10:07 AM

When you saps have finished typical liberal handringing and apologetics for kenedys immorality

please visit

http://tinyurl.com/nl7odj

for the latest wisdom which shoots down mr myers "science"

Shuan. Go play in traffic.

Posted by: Matt Heath | August 26, 2009 10:09 AM

@60: Stay classy, Hard Troofers.

Posted by: cypressgreen | August 26, 2009 10:18 AM

@ littlejohn at #35:
Yes, one wants proof, but also balances evidence.
Maybe he wasn't drunk, but then would we expect his friends to say he was, knowing how his political career might tank over it?
Considering there were no spouses at this 'party' held at an island cabin with some single women present?

And how many sober people would pass up several houses (at least one with the light on) where they could have telephoned for help? And never called for help at the cottage? Let the friends who offered call (why didn't they w/o his 'permission', anyway?)
Or call from the hotel? Or would swim back to the mainland? Go to bed and hold casual conversations with others in the morning w/o reporting the accident?

His behavior and his friends' behavior can't be explained by shock. I can only reason he had something to hide. The men at the party never even told the women what had happened! They just kept partying and stayed the night at the cabin!

And yes, I think he did a lot of good in congress. I am separating the stupidity of some of his personal life actions from his political career.

Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 26, 2009 10:26 AM

Shaun you seem to be on the road to perdition by bearing false witness and your morality is showing. You seem to be a false christian being blinded by pride which is a sin.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 26, 2009 10:37 AM

Celtic_Evolution,

Thanks.

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 26, 2009 10:45 AM

Shit.

Shaun #70:

Btw Kennedy was no true Christian , so will be burning in hell as we speak.

Oh, and what part of "judge not, lest ye be judged" did you find difficult to understand? Do you put yourself to be a judge of humanity before the Lord, or are you trying to usurp His authority to be the final arbiter of a man's life? For shame, Shaun.

Posted by: Bobber | August 26, 2009 10:49 AM

No, Ted Kennedy was no saint; and the entire Chappaquiddick affair was certainly a large black mark on his record. Yet you will hardly find, in American politics or amongst the upper 1% income earners, a more dedicated champion of the working class. No, he was not perfect; perhaps he didn't push hard enough for my taste (Bernie Sanders being more closely aligned with my views than Kennedy), but he was a gifted legislator, able to forge compromise with conservatives in order to get at least some progress in the direction he wanted to go.

No, he wasn't radical or revolutionary, and he didn't seek to overturn what is still very much an unjust economic and political hierarchy in the U.S. But he came a hell of a lot closer than the vast majority of the conservative, free-market loving elites that generally serve in the Senate to helping alleviate the symptoms of inequality, if not necessarily addressing the source. I, for one, will miss him.

Posted by: Natalie | August 26, 2009 10:50 AM

#59 - I'm not a baby boomer by any stretch of the imagination (I'm 25) but in a certain sense I feel a connection to the culture and the figures of the boom. That was a watershed era, and it feels like we're still living in it's shadow. Plus I fancied myself a radical leftist as a younger woman and really, really wanted to have lived in the late 60s/early 70s.

For some reason, my generation hasn't produced the sort of huge national (or international) figures previous generations have had. Maybe it's the fracturing of the media due to the internet, but it seems we have a dearth of national figures. I suppose that might be a good thing or a bad thing (time will tell) but I feel like we're missing something.

Then again that could just be the history nerd in me. Items and people from previous eras have a talismanic quality to me - I find something significant in touching or viewing something used by a person from the past. That may sound kind of ridiculous coming from an atheist, but whatever, I'm comfortable with it. Maybe I'm just jonesing for a sense of history my generation doesn't quite have yet. (Yes, yes, Obama, but he's been president for all of 6 months.)

And now I'm rambling, so I'll shut up.

Posted by: BAllanJ | August 26, 2009 11:32 AM

I am appalled by the attempt to create an aristocracy, and don't think Caroline, RFKjr or their cousins have any more right to political office than any other citizen

No, let it skip a generation. I heard when Arnold (before he became The Gubernator) married into the Kennedy clan that one reason was that they were trying to breed a bulletproof Kennedy.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 26, 2009 11:46 AM

Shaun is this how Christians act?

Posted by: Shaun | August 26, 2009 11:50 AM

If the Kennedys had been Baptists then they could all be having the happy reunion referred to (no doubt tongue in cheek), earlier.

However, they made the wrong call, so their current suffering is their own fault.

God Bless.

Posted by: NePDos | August 26, 2009 11:57 AM

#46 Fastlane
I'd like to know why those same people who made, and continue to make, such a big deal of the Chappaquidick incident (for which he was convicted and sentenced, albeit lightly) are not also braying about Laura Bush's (before she was a Bush) killing a 17 year old when she ran a stop sign. She was not even charged with reckless driving at the time.

Because they are not required to sugarcoat the behavior of a Kennedy for driving drunk, driving off a bridge, leaving a person in a car to die, then going home and covering up the incident.

Once you take all those into consideration, it seems rather disproportionate to compare the two. But then again, the point here is to cover up for the criminal and reckless behavior of the Obama Party member, which you do admirably.

#19 NewEnglandBob

Fil, you are as far from reality as anyone could possibly get. Here is a man who could have just skidded along, enjoying his family wealth, but he spent his life fighting for issues he deemed important to the average person.

So to speak. Actually, what he spent his life doing was trying to get working taxpayers to pay for what HE deemed important while skidding along on his family wealth.

Ted Kennedy died a multimillionaire. Considering how he demonized the rich, you have to wonder if he ever intended to live in the hell that he condemned all other multimillionaires to, claiming that they didn't deserve their money, that they were just the beneficiaries of inheritances, and how they deserved to have all their money taken away from them.

I have been lucky to have this man represent me for the last 40 years I have lived here. Putting aside his specific political views, he compromised and negotiated with all political views and was admired by most of his colleagues in both parties, including Ronald Reagan, his political opposite.

Great -- you appreciated a slovenly drunk write laws that dictate how other people should live, eat, drink, or behave. Such moral clarity you have there, buddy. If Kennedy were a Republican, he never would have had a career in politics at all, despite all of his money.

His liberalism was as much a shield as it was anything else. And he needed plenty of shields this broken man you idolize so much.

Posted by: Shaun | August 26, 2009 12:07 PM

teammarty not a Nazi = look it up dumbo.

A pround Conservative you liberal wingnut wackaloon (cf Kennedys).

Posted by: Alyson Miers | August 26, 2009 12:10 PM

NePDos the troll spewed:

Great -- you appreciated a slovenly drunk write laws that dictate how other people should live, eat, drink, or behave. Such moral clarity you have there, buddy. If Kennedy were a Republican, he never would have had a career in politics at all, despite all of his money. (emphasis totally mine)

ROFLMAO

Oh, dear, that is a special kind of Kool-Aid right there.

More importantly, though; if Walton is banned from his usual antics, then why is Shaun still allowed to come in here and poo all over this thread?

Posted by: BluesBassist | August 26, 2009 12:14 PM

Methinks the guys at South Park should update this great music video so that Ted now appears with his brother and nephew (at about 1:45 and 2:50 in).

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103390

Posted by: Carlie | August 26, 2009 12:16 PM

More importantly, though; if Walton is banned from his usual antics, then why is Shaun still allowed to come in here and poo all over this thread?

I would guess that PZ is giving Walton an offer to lie low and remain in his good graces due to his long history here, but Shaun is being allowed to dance himself right down to the dungeon without any impediments. PZ doesn't generally ban until everyone has had ample chance to realize how neccessary the banning is. It's kind of like telling someone they have spinach in their teeth so they shut up and don't embarrass themselves further v. not telling them, letting them go meet the Queen Mother with spinach in their teeth, and laughing about it.

Posted by: Aaron Baker | August 26, 2009 12:21 PM

"If the Kennedys had been Baptists then they could all be having the happy reunion referred to (no doubt tongue in cheek), earlier.

However, they made the wrong call, so their current suffering is their own fault.

God Bless."

Whenever I read something like this, I'm not super-adept at telling whether it's a joke, or meant seriously. Can anyone else here enlighten me? I will say that if it's a joke, it's not very funny.

Some of the comments seem to betray a strangely all-or-nothing moral posture: we can't admire Kennedy for the good he did if he also did this or that REALLY BAD THING.

I think that (drunk or not) his behavior with regard to Chappaquiddick was pretty despicable; I also greatly admire his humane record as a senator--most specifically his consistent championship of the weak (would-be immigrants, abused women, children not eligible for Medicaid--you name it). Many human lives encompass comparable, or even greater, moral contrasts; yet this obvious reality continues to trouble people. Perhaps we'd prefer that such variability didn't exist.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 26, 2009 12:32 PM

Shaun you're an idiot.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 26, 2009 12:43 PM

Can Shaun and Walton share the same cell? It will make it much easier for Floyd Rubber to assist them with their prayers.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 26, 2009 12:45 PM

My supernatural powers of Walton-prediction tell me that #99 and #104 is a not-Walton who's trolling to get the real one banned. IP logs will tell for sure, of course, but I called it first.

Posted by: Fred Mounts | August 26, 2009 12:47 PM

P.Z. said something about lowering the hammer on the libertards, at least in relation to Scott from Oregon in the My Lai thread. Can the fuckwit Walton be included in any ban? It's depressing enough to know that such idiots exist without having to have them piss in our pool.

Posted by: QNA | August 26, 2009 12:50 PM

Shaun, do you ever wonder what your life might be like if you hadn't eaten paint chips as a child?

Posted by: Shaun | August 26, 2009 12:51 PM

@Bobber #75

Unjust economic and political hierarchy? Excuse me . Where can you find anywhere in the world, where a motivated poor man given the right tools and opportunity can become become rich and famous or for a wealthy man who have everything in the world can find himself penniless due to his bad decisions. If you want to talk about unjust political hierarchy, then why is it that most of the political dynasties came from the Democratic party . Names like the Kennedys, the Cuomos and the Daleys among others comes into mind.

There's another word for inequalities, that word is envy. Envy is a bottomless pit that cannot be satisfied because it constantly desires even in things that cannot be changed like accidents of birth , genetics and so forth whereas Greed and Selfishness can be limited by various ways like wealth,law,health,ability and space.

Posted by: Teh Merkin | August 26, 2009 12:55 PM

Shaun is this how Christians act?

Indeed, this IS how Christians act.

Shaun: Go boil your head.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 26, 2009 1:01 PM

Go away, not-Walton. Your breath reeks of crackers.

Posted by: KI | August 26, 2009 1:04 PM

More fake Walton-I doubt he'd "pray" for someone at this point. And excuse me for berating him re Reagan (although I still think Reagan was a tyrant and despot).

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 26, 2009 1:04 PM

Patricia, there was that clue. Also he was saying things that Walton would never say unless drunk, and it's too early in the day for Walton to be drunk on a Wednesday.

Posted by: Walton | August 26, 2009 1:07 PM

I can confirm that someone has been impersonating me on this thread. The comment at #54 was the last one I made here, and, though I didn't see the fake comments before they were deleted, I certainly did not say this (quoted by Knockgoats at #105):

I've yet to see any benefit the "working class" has received from any of these rich liberals who empty our pockets to line their own.

I suppose I should be honoured: after all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. :-) But I'll sign in using Typekey from now on (if I can figure out how to make it work) to avoid this happening again.

Posted by: KI | August 26, 2009 1:09 PM

@118
Reagan promised the Iranians weapons if they kept the hostages until after the election. Learn your history, and how to tell time. And quit impersonating.

Posted by: Walton | August 26, 2009 1:09 PM

Update: comments #111 and #118 are not me. I will confirm this to Professor Myers by email if need be.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 26, 2009 1:12 PM

Good grief - someone pretending to be Walton??? I see this piece of shit is still at it @111.

Anyhow, apologies to the real Walton for any of my comments aimed at him as a result of the fake Walton's postings.

Posted by: Walton | August 26, 2009 1:17 PM

Just to make things clear: this is my Typekey account, which I have used to comment here in the past (during the period when unregistered commenting was disabled; a perusal of old threads will confirm this). I can confirm that posts #21, #54, #119 and #124 were made by me. All the other posts on this thread signed as "Walton" were made by an impersonator, and I would appreciate it if they were deleted, since I don't want to be associated with their sentiments.

Posted by: Watchman | August 26, 2009 1:18 PM

You're already off the hook for the remarks of the low-life who's trying to impersonate you, Walton. We'll do our best not to let the phony suck us in. PZ can identify the real you by IP address, so - no worries.

Posted by: Wandered In | August 26, 2009 1:22 PM

You know, Shaun, you aren't going to accomplish anything here. Nobody here is going to listen to a fanatic spewing the kind of venom you espouse. I'd recommend you go elsewhere, but I doubt you'd accomplish anything, anywhere, that requires an intellect.

I realize this isn't going to do anything, but Shaun is simply unbelievable. Are we sure he's not a truly tasteless Poe? Raeding his disemvoweled comments the first time, I simply couldn't understand them. I thought there HAD to be some other sentence that wouldn't be quite as monstrous that had the same consonants.

I'm too young to remember Kennedy's time in office (that is, I haven't been interested in politics before the last few years, other than Bushbashing *spits on ground*)but I regret the passing of a great politician... RIP, if there is peace to be had.
Wandered In

Posted by: KI | August 26, 2009 1:26 PM

I repeat: Uncle Thomas is an imbecile, and I believe Anita Hill.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 26, 2009 1:29 PM

Posted by: Shaun | August 26, 2009 1:23 PM

blah blah blah blah blah.

Posted by: Inky | August 26, 2009 1:30 PM

I've been expecting his death ever since his diagnosis, but, oh, what a heart-wrenching sadness to hear of his passing. He was an *amazing* politician.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 26, 2009 1:38 PM

What's that noise? Nothing but a gnat's gnat. As insubstantial as his imaginary deity.

Posted by: Will | August 26, 2009 1:41 PM

#108 Knockgoats

"..doesn't the hypocrisy of receiving support from taxpayers while whining about "rich liberals who empty our pockets" worry you? Even a bit?"

Put it this way Knockgoats, there's a big difference between receiving temporary support from fellow taxpayers and receiving permanent support from taxpayers. And oh btw, those rich liberals especially those who are in politics, they forget to pay their taxes and they can get away with it with a slap in the wrist unlike us who will pay the full consequences if when we fail to pay our taxes.

Posted by: aratina cage | August 26, 2009 1:46 PM

Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy...

President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.

Posted by: Will | August 26, 2009 1:49 PM

#121 KI

"Reagan promised the Iranians weapons if they kept the hostages until after the election. Learn your history."

That's right KI. The administration started the weapons deal in 1983 hoping to affect the 1980 election......wait a minute. I suppose KI also believes Oliver North acted alone.

#130 KI

"Clarence Thomas is an imbecile, and Robert Bork a crypto-fascist."

Wow, it took longer than I thought to turn KI's reasoned arguments into inaccurate name calling.........

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 26, 2009 1:53 PM

It is not dishonest chimp to tell PZ to fuck off , and carry on preaching Gods word.

God is my master , not PZ , even on his blog

God told you to tell PZ to fuck off? Seems a bit blasphemous, Pawn...

Posted by: eli | August 26, 2009 1:55 PM

So what I get from your comments Shuan is that all folks who Christians prior to 1524 (founding Anabaptist church in Augsburg, Germany) are in hell as well as all non-christians... man, crowded place. I like the take james Morrow takes in Only Begotten Daughter, all it takes for one to go to hell is someone else believing you're going to hell (i think the total population of heaven is 3 in the story).

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 26, 2009 1:59 PM

Will - Walton has a history here that you may not be aware of. Knockgoats needling of him is spot on.

Posted by: Shaun | August 26, 2009 2:07 PM

#56 rjb

Civil rights, family leave, voting rights for 18-21 year olds, disabilities act... his legacy is awe inspiring.

Nothing, NOT A THING he did could atone for allowing a young woman to die a slow, agonizing death by smothering in a sinking car because of greed.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 26, 2009 2:13 PM

Nothing, NOT A THING he did could atone for allowing a young woman to die a slow, agonizing death by smothering in a sinking car because of greed.

One can make that point, sure... in fact I'm not sure where anyone's arguing against that line of thinking, necessarily.

Does this invalidate the work he did? Are you saying we'd be better off if he didn't accomplish those things? Maybe he should have spent his time praying for forgiveness instead. I'm sure that's what you would have done, Pawn.

Look, moron... you're in over your head here. Run along.

Posted by: Watchman | August 26, 2009 2:16 PM

KI, you're blowing it, here. Will is right. Iran-Contra happened years after the infamous hostage situation that Carter was faced with, and is at most only tangentially related in that Iran was involved both times.

Posted by: pdferguson | August 26, 2009 2:25 PM

Little Shaun blathered:

Nothing, NOT A THING he did could atone for allowing a young woman to die a slow, agonizing death by smothering in a sinking car because of greed.

I guess we know where you stand on that whole forgiveness bullshit your superhero on a stick, Jesus, seemed to think was a good idea.

Why do Christards always seem to have no problem disregarding the lessons of their so-called "master"?

Posted by: not a gator | August 26, 2009 2:26 PM

@ Nepdos

Considering how he demonized the rich, you have to wonder if he ever intended to live in the hell that he condemned all other multimillionaires to

Boy, now there's a laugh line for the centuries!

Au voleur! Au voleur! A l'assassin! Au meutrier! Il m'a coupé la gorge (funny, you're still talking) Il m'a assassiné

And now, the money shot:

Il a volé mon argent!

Posted by: not a gator | August 26, 2009 2:41 PM

@141

Voluntary 'make it good' with the IRS ends in September. Slaps on the wrist end then.

I can guarantee you that if not conservatives*, then plenty of libertardians are among the "tax protesters" in for an anal robo-rooting next year courtesy Internal Revenue.

*-no true conservatives, natch!

As a tax payer since age 11, I'm chortling with glee at the thought of plutocrats and thieves finally paying their fair share, plus penalties and interest! Makes up for all those years of FICA I'll never get back and those awful years of self-employment tax...

Posted by: not a gator | August 26, 2009 2:45 PM

@160

Spoken like a true Calvinist. Since the true offense is against God and hence infinite, no amount of human atonement (finite) can ever make up for it.

Truly one of the most miserable creeds ever imposed upon humankind.

Posted by: Intelligent Designer, OP | August 26, 2009 3:23 PM

Entropy sucks.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 26, 2009 4:28 PM

Ryan:

I suppose that, by this, you are stating that bloviating idiots who make asses from themselves and just happen to be women get to stay in Congress? That explains Michelle Malkin, then.

Ah, I think you mean Michelle Bachmann (Wackaloon-MN); thank FSM, no state has seen fit to send Michelle Malkin to the hallowed halls.¹

Other than that one nit, though... keep up the good work, dude!

¹ I'm beginning to get the willies about the fact that my candidate for Mayor in my town's upcoming municipal elections — the head of my ticket, in fact, as I'm a candidate for Town Council — is named Michele. Hopefully the fact that she's a one-l Michele confer immunity to Bachmann-Malkin Syndrome... <fingers-crossed>

Posted by: pdferguson | August 26, 2009 4:43 PM

Anybody else would have been in jail for a while.

Perhaps strangers will speak as kindly about you when you die, Pammy...

Posted by: Randy | August 26, 2009 4:59 PM

I, like most of the less insane posting here, was saddened this morning when I heard the news of his death. All of us die of course, but his was a powerful strong voice and will be missed. He was certainly human (all too human at times) but he did more for his fellow man than most of us will ever do. I think that is as good a marker as any for a successful life. We will miss you Ted.

"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die."

--Democratic National Convention, August 1980.

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 26, 2009 5:06 PM

Ichthyic #174:

keep going, Walton.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 26, 2009 5:11 PM

Much as I am loath to defend him, he retracted the comment to which you responded and left when PZ asked it of him.

bah.

if you knew him, that's his fucking MO.

he'll be back tomorrow to troll up another thread.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 26, 2009 5:16 PM

His apology was satisfactory, after all, and he kept his promise as far as he was able.

his apology was a lie.

frankly, i find his "apologies" to be even more reprehensible than his rhetoric.

Posted by: Richard Eis | August 26, 2009 5:52 PM

-It is suggestive, though, that all this hit just as the obsessed Christian nutjobs stumbled upon us.-

Apparently Tom is refuting your claims. He has a point actually. correlation is not causation and I don't think Tom would do such a thing as a DoS attack. His Shaun neither. And let's face it, you pissed off a LOT of people recently.

Is there any way to check the current Shaun with Tom's Shaun? Tom says his Shaun hasn't posted at all.

Sorry, but this is turning into a mess where everyone is accusing everyone else of something and that's not good.

Posted by: Pam in Taos | August 26, 2009 6:36 PM

Your guys are correct....I'm an unreasonable B*TCH because I think that celebrities, be they politicians (or jocks) be held accountable for what they do. Good deeds should erase negligence, as least, for democratic politicians????

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 26, 2009 6:50 PM

Is there any way to check the current Shaun with Tom's Shaun? Tom says his Shaun hasn't posted at all.

the reason PZ identifies this shaun as such, is that he himself identified as coming from Pastor Tom's site to defend him when he first started posting.

his language and style were consistent throughout the time he vented his spleen here, telling us often how Pastor Tom "saved his life".

My guess would be that Sean/shaun was an alcoholic (or similar), and Pastor Tom helped him out of his addiction.

well, at least exchanged one addiction for another of a less physically disabling kind.

His irrational defenses of Tom would be expected under such circumstances.

bottom line?

Nobody really cares, and Tom Estes et. al. will be entirely forgotten next week.

He was simply chosen as a representative sample of crazy at the time, since he also chose to associate himself with the adventure to the creation playground.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 26, 2009 6:52 PM

Good deeds should erase negligence, as least, for democratic politicians????'

*yawns at pearl-clutching hyberbole*

Posted by: Neil | August 26, 2009 7:06 PM

Some of the comments here really got me thinking. It's interesting to see the differences between what people of different ideologies see as moral and immoral, and how different people think that those views should affect our opinions of others.

It is obvious to me that Kennedy's reputation will be forever scarred by certain events, whether or not it is deserved. Even among the most closed ranks of liberals, his personal shortcomings and failings will be brought up and discussed, and this will be used for political advantage by his opponents as long as it carries any weight-as it has been, mercilessly, for four decades. Some here seem to think that despite all he fought for and accomplished for his constituents, his legacy should be one of shame, and should be used only to hurt and discredit those who also agree with his causes.

Most of this moral outrage is supposedly based around the car wreck. Other than leaving the scene of an accident, he was convicted of nothing, and no one has ever offered any proof that there was any other mistake made. Even so, many of his opponents have chosen to paint him as a deliberate and unrepentant murderer, and sought to use rumor and suspicion not only to defame one liberal senator, but to imply moral weakness or even complicity on the part of those who merely agree with his political views. Sad to say, many ignorant Americans agree with this and perpetuate it, if only out of political convenience. I would think that anyone who claims any moral high ground would not stoop to such tactics, but clearly that is not the case.

While considering these issues, I realized something. I would gladly give up all fond memories of the senator's tenure, forget that he as a politician and as a person ever existed, agree to repeal every liberal law he helped to get passed, and agree to bury all of his legacy under a million tons of right-wing bullshit, on one condition: that his reactionary detractors, for once in the history of America, applied anything close to the same standards to their own leaders. Let's run the experiment.

Ted Kennedy-possibly responsible for one innocent person's death. Possibly partly responsible for a possibly unhappy marriage. Maybe he drank a bit much. He was Irish. These "charges" mean that we all agree to regard him as nothing but a murdering degenerate drunk terrorist-loving scumbag. Fine. Done.
Now it's the conservatives' turn.
Bush II-Factually, undeniably responsible for the deaths of up to 1 million innocent people. Knowingly lied to start a genocidal oil war. Knowingly violated the constitution in regard to secret prisons, separation of church and state, search and seizure, and who knows what else. Gave a big thumbs up to the use of torture. Used government resources to tamper with election(s). We're deep into treason and war crimes territory here, and that's without rumor or conjecture, just plain old front-page undisputed facts.
Reagan- Ok'ed selling arms to enemies who vowed to destroy us, and let the proceeds go to illegal overthrows of other governments, causing the brutal deaths of tens of thousands or more. Lied to congress not about blowjobs, but possibly treasonous doings. Used his power to undermine the rights of workers to peacefully assemble.

I would include Bush I and Nixon, but they were much smoother operators, and look like angels in comparison. After all, Nixon only got impeached for ordering a burglary in order to throw an election. What a paragon of virtue, by conservative standards. No wonder he's the only one who paid any price at all. He was way too honest and nice to have been a republican!
To recap- One undeserved death versus millions murdered and hundreds(?)thousands(?) kidnapped and possibly tortured. A few somewhat liberal policies, a little higher taxes to support the poor, versus the treasonous ignoring of our most basic, foundational rules as a society.

So if we agree to demonize and then forget Kennedy altogether for his shortcomings, what would be fair treatment for conservatives? I suggest that Bush, Cheney, and every republican congressman that was sitting between 2000 and 2008 be imprisoned and tortured to death on camera, have all of their possessions confiscated, and have their families turned out into the streets to live or die as the public sees fit. I suggest that we dig up Nixon and Reagan, defile their corpses, and burn the remains on national television. I suggest that the republican party be forcibly disbanded under pain of death, and any who remain loyal in any way after the purges be imprisoned for life.
By Conservative standards of pure, unblemished moral conduct, it's only fair, right?
So what do you say, conservatives? Any of you nutless, murderous, tribalistic moron monkey-fuckers have the balls to take your own medicine at a proper dosage, one that fits the extent of your disgusting infection? Of course not. You'll just have another go at a man who has done more for America and the human race than all of you put together EVER WILL. Chappaquiddick!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 26, 2009 7:21 PM

Don't forget, ignored a growing pandemic because the "wrong people" were the ones getting sick.

Or perhaps, loath as I am to even suggest it, he may have thought it was the right people getting sick. <shudder>

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 26, 2009 7:31 PM

Hummm...defile and burn their corpses, turn their families out onto the streets with nothing...

*ding*

I'll take 'Catholic' for $200.00 Alex.

Posted by: Pam In Taos | August 26, 2009 7:39 PM

To Ichthyic: I really appreciate your sarcasm. I guess I'm not smart enough to comment. Only folks who AGREE with the DOGMA that Ted Kennedy was a great man should be allowed to say anything.......forgive me for not being a believer....... AMEN

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 26, 2009 7:42 PM

Pam in Taos #183:

Your guys are correct....I'm an unreasonable B*TCH because I think that celebrities, be they politicians (or jocks) be held accountable for what they do.

Good deeds should erase negligence, as least, for democratic politicians????

So I have to ask: what would it have taken to erase Sen. Kennedy's guilt in your eyes? Go ahead - say whatever gets you wet when you talk about those awful criminals with their absent morals and about how much you'd like to keep them in their place, those dirty scumbags. Go ahead. Tell us how much you hated Ted Kennedy more for who he was than anything he did.

Posted by: pdferguson | August 26, 2009 7:45 PM

Pam the unreasonable bitch wrote:

Your guys are correct....I'm an unreasonable B*TCH because I think that celebrities, be they politicians (or jocks) be held accountable for what they do.

No, you're an unreasonable bitch because you badmouthed a man who died less than 24 hours ago, a man who presumably never wronged you in any way.

Have you no decency, madam?

Posted by: Josh | August 26, 2009 7:47 PM

Hey Neil--can I buy you a beer?

Posted by: Pam In Taos | August 26, 2009 7:51 PM

To Ichthyic: "Stupid" is defined as anyone who doesn't agree with you?

Posted by: SC, OM | August 26, 2009 7:56 PM

I would love for someone to explain what "bitch" means in this context (and don't tell me it's just a response - it's gone on long enough). Unreasonable, OK/legitimate. But bitch? Do tell.

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 26, 2009 7:58 PM

Ichthyic #194:

at what point should one conclude his apologies are nothing but vapor?

Seriously, you'll just have to let me get there on my own - and I have no doubt I will. After all, it's not as if I am inviting him back; to the contrary: I would rather he kept himself well clear.

Posted by: Bob | August 26, 2009 8:03 PM

To #189

I think it's a Sick F--- that would SUGGEST digging up decayed mixtures of earth and flesh and performing some kind of paraphilia act or maybe he is in to sniffing CH2O, CH3OH, and/or C2H5OH. Rob a funeral home not a grave.

Posted by: Bob | August 26, 2009 8:09 PM

#196

You ARE in the BAND. You are the Monkey-fucker

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 26, 2009 8:17 PM

Bob #209:

I think it's a Sick F--- that would SUGGEST digging up decayed mixtures of earth and flesh and performing some kind of paraphilia act or maybe he is in to sniffing CH2O, CH3OH, and/or C2H5OH. Rob a funeral home not a grave.

Don't answer that. I already know the answer anyway. Go read it again, moron, and see if you can't catch the not-so-subtle clues that he isn't suggesting a thing.

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 26, 2009 8:36 PM

SC, OM #214:

Huh? Gosh, that sounds rather misogynistic to me.

Which covers unreasonable and nothing more.

Do tell.

Posted by: Bob | August 26, 2009 8:42 PM

# 199

Presumably Never Harmed You? What planet you been hiding on since that "pIECE oF wORK" instututed legislation for 47 years that has effected ME!!! I don't care if he died 24 seconds ago, his politics were WRONG for a free society. If you lazy liberals would believe in working for a existance you wouldn't be so anxious to suck the liberal nectar from his cord. But it's hard to see through that little hole isn't it?

Posted by: Chiroptera | August 26, 2009 8:52 PM

Bob, #217: I don't care if he died 24 seconds ago, his politics were WRONG for a free society.

I suppose that it is relevant to consider Kennedy's legislative career in evaluating his life. So congratulations on that.

I still think it's funny, though, to read a conservative who thinks he knows anything about a free society.

Posted by: Bob | August 26, 2009 8:53 PM

# 213

What do I think? I think you're full of shit!!

Posted by: Josh | August 26, 2009 8:55 PM

I still think it's funny, though, to read a conservative who thinks he knows anything about a free society.

Winner of thread.

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 26, 2009 9:03 PM

Bob #217:

Presumably Never Harmed You? What planet you been hiding on since that "pIECE oF wORK" instututed legislation for 47 years that has effected ME!!! I don't care if he died 24 seconds ago, his politics were WRONG for a free society.

Why not go wash your morals off somewhere before you come back next time?

Posted by: pdferguson | August 26, 2009 9:04 PM

Bobby blathered:

Presumably Never Harmed You? What planet you been hiding on since that "pIECE oF wORK" instututed legislation for 47 years that has effected ME!!! I don't care if he died 24 seconds ago, his politics were WRONG for a free society.

Oops, better adjust your shorts, little fella, your right wingnut is showing.

I can only imagine what your idea of a "free society" might be; apparently it doesn't include little things like democratic elections, the will of the people, that sort of thing. Perhaps you could enlighten us on just what legislation Senator Kennedy instituted that has caused you such grievous damage.

On second thought, skip it. If I want your view on things, I can just turn on Fox News...

Posted by: Chiroptera | August 26, 2009 9:10 PM

Ryan Egesdahl, #225: You would be highly disgusted at the temerity of a person to use politics to insult a dead man, wouldn't you?

Funny you should bring this up. I distinctly remember when Reagan died, the less forgiving members of that message board had a few unkind things to say about Reagan. The conservative members were incensed that such disrespect could be shown to the man. Undoubtedly Bob would have been among those to chastise those conservatives and support his more liberal brethren in expressing their opinions on the life of the past President.

Posted by: Bob | August 26, 2009 9:16 PM

# 223

You think a screen door on submarine is funny. That's the definition of liberal. It makes no sense, but government bureaucracy dictates it so it must be right. Besides some entitled entity will send you welfare monies for you siding with them.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | August 26, 2009 9:17 PM

Bob #217

If you lazy liberals would believe in working for a existance you wouldn't be so anxious to suck the liberal nectar from his cord.

Fuck you, asshole. I've worked every day of my life since two days after I graduated from high school.

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 26, 2009 9:25 PM

Patricia, OM #228:

Ryan, do you think you are the first internet tough guy to come here? Your threats are boring. Try something else.

Posted by: E.V. | August 26, 2009 9:30 PM

WHoa. WTF?!! Ryan has been very funny, smart and well spoken. What's the gang up over, the word "bitch"? C'mon people, aim for the trolls not the Pharyngulites.

Posted by: John Morales | August 26, 2009 9:38 PM

Shaun @238, I find you contemptible.

Posted by: Shaun | August 26, 2009 9:46 PM

It is estimated that Mary Jo was alive in the car for 4 hours.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 26, 2009 9:48 PM

Shaun, still a pointless idjit troll. Maybe if he stopped pooping on our nice blog...

Posted by: Eidolon | August 26, 2009 9:51 PM

Shuan:

Where did that number come from? That seems abso-fuckin-lutely impossible. Is that info in the coroner's report or did you get that from some god botherer site? Or did you just pull that out of your ass?

Posted by: SC, OM | August 26, 2009 9:52 PM

Politely butt your nosy self out of this, madam. It doesn't concern you, however much you probably want to believe it does.

Or it does concern her, and not you. However much you want to believe it's all about you, she's won an OM and you haven't. We love her.

Or does the cosmos revolve around you?

Posted by: Chiroptera | August 26, 2009 9:59 PM

Bob, #231: You think a screen door on submarine is funny. That's the definition of liberal. It makes no sense, but government bureaucracy dictates it so it must be right.

And conservatives think it's fine when people drown because private contractors put screen doors on submarines. Conservatives call it "the magic of the marketplace." I think that's funny. Except for the drowned people.

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 26, 2009 10:03 PM

Shaun #238:

I heard that Hitler did a lot of good things too. He loved animals, he hated smoking, he was a vegetarian.

E.V. #237:

What's the gang up over, the word "bitch"? C'mon people, aim for the trolls not the Pharyngulites.

SC, OM #236:

Yeah, sure. I invite anyone to read the thread.

Fuck you and the high horse you rode in on, SC. I don't need you to start policing the words I use, especially when it's a single word taken out of its context. Your support of gender equality is laudable, but your methods are highly judgmental and overbearing. Shut up about your gender identity already - we get it, we really do.

I'll have you know you're talking to a gay man here. I've been called all sorts of fun things, like sissy, pansy, fag, cocksucker, queen, fairy, to name the nicer ones - all based on my sexual orientation and some stereotype people have over it.

I've had people assume I couldn't catch a baseball, work on a car, run track, play football, or even dress in anything but a "gay" way - all based on my sexual orientation and some stereotype people have over it.

I've had to stand by while people made insulting gay jokes within earshot of me, made disparaging remarks about something being "gay", start spouting homophobic nonsense, talk about how evil I was and how I should be killed - all based on my sexual orientation and some stereotype people have over it.

If you want to believe you're the only person who suffers because someone says hurtful things, you really need to get over yourself, m'dear. I don't need some judgmental nebshit like you picking apart the things people say to find some cause célèbre for the ultra-feminist movement. Seriously, shut the fuck up about your personal prejudices already.

And before you accuse someone of misogyny the next time, take a step back and wonder whether you aren't guilty of misandry first. Not every time a man says a word you don't like does it mean he his misogynist. I fully support the equal role of women in modern society, and I have all my life. My mother is a strong woman and raised me to appreciate women for what they contribute. You insult her by implying a negative bias on my part about her. Here's a kicker for you: my mother uses the term bitch to describe herself, and in a serious manner. She has to be to get the men around her (since she is a construction superintendent of 20+ years' experience) to even listen to what she has to say. I applaud my mother every day she goes to work in a male-dominated field because she's better than they are at what she does and they know it.

You can take your brand of feminism and stuff it wherever it pleases you most because it isn't my brand of feminism. Just like my mother taught me, I don't go around taking offense to everything people around me say and try to look for hidden motives behind individual word like you do. Why? Because she is a strong woman who knows that gender equality is just as much about learning to roll with the punches as it is asserting your own equality. You, SC, are weak.

Now, can we please get back to the topic at hand?

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 26, 2009 10:06 PM

I bet it was an honest attempt not to let some uber-feminist derail the thread into a personal vendetta against anything that smells of misogyny. If you were laughing, I wasn't.

Maybe you aren't a misogynist, in the sense that maybe you don't feel a burning hatred for women in your heart. I'll assume this, because I have no particular reason not to give you the benefit of the doubt.

This doesn't make you incapable of saying or doing sexist things, though. Sometimes good people make bad mistakes.

Some of the things you've said in this thread have been sexist. I refer to your repeated choice of the term "bitch" to address women you disagree with.

Being in favor of women's rights, as I'm sure you are, doesn't earn you points that you can trade in to make a few sexist remarks okay.

SC was right to bring your attention to this matter. Certainly there are other things going on in this thread. But that's no reason to abandon decency.

Posted by: Neil | August 26, 2009 10:09 PM

Thanks to those who got the spirit of my rant. The double standard of morality employed by the right is ridiculous, and moreso every day.

Yes, yes, sometimes I go too far for the easily insulted, or the mentally deficient...I wouldn't actually have anybody tortured, or toss whole families out into the streets, or desecrate corpses. But that's about as far as the exaggeration goes. It would really take almost all
the conditions I ranted about for me to just call everything "even." Conservatives have stretched the double standard of morality and accountability so far past the breaking point it would leave me speechless if I had to stick to plain simple discourse, and I'll be damned if I'm going to shut up just because I'm too stunned by the hypocrisy to speak calmly.

For republicans to carry ANY moral or intellectual weight with me, would require tossing out half or more of the party, renouncing imperialist warfare, and debating their issues in good faith. Despite whatever views one has of the fantasy of a completely free market, it is obvious to me that the tactics and policies of the last few decades of republican politicians go way beyond unconstitutional and illegal. I think that the founding fathers would be disappointed, if not surprised, in just how far a few power-mad zealots can get on jingoism, character assassination and misinformation. And I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't be blaming the liberals at this point.

Totally unrelated----but I must warn my fellow sexist pig Ryan...
Here come the word police! WooHoo!!!WooHooo!!! Watch out all you Internet Tough Guys(TM)!!! SC,OM is here to save all the poor women of the world from offensive speech!!
Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do, when SC gets a wild hair and comes for you...
I responded once to a comment by SC, and after one attempt I noticed that: Any questions or points I raised were completely blown off, and because I dared to disagree over the level and importance of the sexist content of the topic at hand, and American society in general, I was also after one single comment branded an Internet Tough Guy.

Don't expect a useful conversation. You could agree on everything else under the sun, but if you dare to use the wrong word, or defend an action that the almighty, all-knowing SC,OM deems sexist, then you are a sexist pig who is so steeped in sexist culture that you can't even see what a sexist piece of shit you really are. It's a damn good thing that we have the all-seeing eye of SC,OM to look into our hearts and convict our spirits of our horrible crimes against women.

Thank you, SC,OM. Without you, I never would have known what a sexist pig I've been all my life. Come to think of it, neither would my friends, or Mom, or significant other,
or anyone else who doesn't go off the rails judging people and making huge assumptions about them based on a few words...but hey, thanks all the same!

Posted by: E.V. | August 26, 2009 10:11 PM

I heard that Hitler did a lot of good things too. He loved animals, he hated smoking, he was a vegetarian.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 26, 2009 10:16 PM

Bob spewed:

instututed legislation for 47 years that has effected ME!!!

really?

can you cite the exact legislation Kennedy himself wrote that affected (not effected) you personally?

seriously, I'm curious if you even have a clue which specific legislative efforts made your personal life such a living hell that you lost most of your brain function.

so, go on ahead, list the nails in your coffin, so the rest of us can dig you out of the grave you've dug for yourself.

I know, it probably won't help YOU, but anyone with half a mind left might actually get something out of looking at the actual legislation that you think affected your life so extremely.

Posted by: MyaR | August 26, 2009 10:21 PM

Wow, that Ryan guy sure is a pansified drama queen, isn't he? I bet he throws like a girl, too.

Hey, don't judge me, I didn't get married until my (male) gay best friend could.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 26, 2009 10:25 PM

Sideshow Bob further spewed:

the world has deducted that the only monkey-fuckin' on here is a monkey fucked another like species and you was born!!

I'm thinking that the only possible legislation Kennedy could have passed that would have resulted in this kind of screed is some sort of cut in funds for mental health care, which actually doesn't seem very likely given his devotion to health care issues.

so, tell me, Sideshow Bob, is Kennedy your "Bart Simpson"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWDIwBMYxm0&feature=related

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 26, 2009 10:27 PM

Is there already a named "internet" law about this:

...it's about someone assuming too much about a person before launching into an uber-feminist frenzy over nothing. [emphasis added]

If it hasn't already been proclaimed under some other title, I hereby proclaim Dauphin's Law:

"It is impossible to say or write anything inoffensive that includes the word uber, unless you're actually writing in German, in which case it is only highly unlikely, rather than impossible, to be inoffensive."

So mote it be!!

Posted by: E.V. | August 26, 2009 10:30 PM

Damn, what a time to have a cluster headache. I can't think of words right now.

It's like junkyard dogs turning on each other at the slightest provocation when there are a real trolls present and in need of attention.
(Can't we all just get along?!! owww - it hurts when I laugh)

Posted by: Willie | August 26, 2009 10:34 PM

#255

Neil

Yes, yes, sometimes I go too far for the easily insulted, or the mentally deficient.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL stop it, your f'ing hurting me you sanctimonious ass. You are a freekin' joke you has no sense of core value and never had an original thought in your parrot head. What a flippin' maroooon!

Posted by: E.V. | August 26, 2009 10:36 PM

Wow, that Ryan guy sure is a pansified drama queen, isn't he? I bet he throws like a girl, too.

Hey, don't judge me, I didn't get married until my (male) gay best friend could.

Posted by: Sean | August 26, 2009 10:39 PM

#255

For republicans to carry ANY moral or intellectual weight with me, would require tossing out half or more of the party, renouncing imperialist warfare, and debating their issues in good faith. Despite whatever views one has of the fantasy of a completely free market, it is obvious to me that the tactics and policies of the last few decades of republican politicians go way beyond unconstitutional and illegal. I think that the founding fathers would be disappointed, if not surprised, in just how far a few power-mad zealots can get on jingoism, character assassination and misinformation. And I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't be blaming the liberals at this point.

Almost completely agree... except the last sentence. There are libertarian elements - Classical Liberal, if you will - in both the Conservative and Liberal streams the Founders would trust. There are also Statist and Authoritarian elements in both that the Founders would repulse. Bush was a classic, as was Kennedy.

Neil - InstaPundit links to Nick Gillespie of Reason Magazine:

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/84149/

During the 1970s, Kennedy was instrumental in deregulating the interstate trucking industry and airline ticket prices, two innovations that have vastly improved the quality of life in America even as — or more precisely, because — they pushed power out of D.C. and into the pocketbooks of everyday Americans.

Posted by: samuel | August 26, 2009 10:40 PM

RIP Mary Jo

Posted by: Carlie | August 26, 2009 10:42 PM

I've gotten knee-jerk sexist term defense bingo so many times already I could cash in and get a new car.

Posted by: Dan | August 26, 2009 10:44 PM

#254

Neil

I lived in Chicago since 1996 and from where I stand, the Democratic party carried no moral or intellectual weight. Heck, at least the incompetent Republican party in Illinois had the guts to judge and leave George Ryan to his well deserved fate for his graft and corruption. How about your Democratic party, Neil? Rangel, Dodd, Pelosi, Reid , Barney and oh yes , the late lamented Ted Kennedy. They are still in office (with the exception of Ted), in spite of their respective malfeasance while the Republicans let their corrupt senators and congressmen hung to dry for their crimes.

The problem you have in your projection is this, people can now refute what you are saying in real time . This was impossible prior to the internet age.

Again, when you act like a mature adult, I will take you very seriously.

Ciao

Posted by: Shwan | August 26, 2009 10:51 PM

Ichthyic #176

"why not take your approach and apply it to ANYONE that has ever acted as a politician, and see how well it works:"

Well Itchie, if I REALLY need to explain the difference between a senator who left a woman to suffocate and some bible thumper slapping a hooker, you wouldn't understand.

Posted by: Dan | August 26, 2009 10:54 PM

#273

Sean

I agree, getting the government over regulation out of health care would be a massive improvement alongside tort reform. We need more privately run hospitals to complement University hospitals and government run hospitals. We also need more doctors, nurses and therapists to staff these hospitals. We need the veteran health care staff to stay in their respective fields and not leave their respective professions. Turnover rates are horrendous and unless something can be done. Chronic under staffing will be the order of the day. Importing foreign health staff like me will not solve the problem unless everybody find a way to keep the staff you have now and grow the next generation of health care professionals from it's own citizenry.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 26, 2009 10:58 PM

Jadehawk, OM!:

forgetting umlauts is always offensive. :-p

I didn't forget: It's just that umlauts exceed my HTML-fu.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 26, 2009 11:06 PM

One word used deliberately as an insult is suddenly sexist?

Yes, obviously the action is sexist. What do you think "sexism" means?

For that matter, I have used the word "fag" as an endearing term with a man before - does that make me bigoted, or am I just "reclaiming" a word?

Can't you see that a straight person calling you a fag as an insult would be a bigoted thing to do?

Well, duh. How is one word a sexist remark, though? I called her a name.

And if you called her an "idiot" or something like that, then it would have just been an attack, not a sexist remark, and no one would have found it troubling.

There are names and then there are sexist names.

Why must I be decent? If I have the freedom to be indecent and get my point across, what business is it of yours?

I have friends and family who are women. It is my business if the culture they have to live in is reflexively accepting of sexist language.

And what makes SC right to imply that I am a misogynist over a single word?

In response to your comment of "As in female that barks, a figurative term used to describe a woman (or a man, to invoke his hatred of the opposite gender)" she replied "Huh? Gosh, that sounds rather misogynistic to me."

Your comment. Your words. Sounded misogynistic. Not that you were necessarily a misogynist for saying them. She said essentially the same thing I did, that what you said was sexist. She didn't imply that you must necessarily have a burning hatred of women in order to say it. You inferred more than she said. I daresay you were being ... hypersensitive.

I think some people around here are forgetting that a misogynist is not someone who uses sexist terms; misogynists attempt to enforce an inferior status for women - the words they use are incidental. For that matter, a sexist is someone who attempts to maintain clear distinctions in the roles between men and women - the words they use are incidental.

By this standard, a person can only be a homophobe if they donated to Prop 8. If they get up in your face and call you a fucking faggot, that's not a homophobic act.

Please.

Just because someone uses a sexist word in a completely non-sexist context does not make that person a sexist. And yes, I would call a man a bitch just to provoke is male ego; it has nothing to do with me assuming he is inferior by being "effeminate".

But calling a woman a bitch to insult her is using it in a sexist context. And calling a man likewise is using it in a sexist context. By trying to take advantage of gender stereotyping to hurt a man, you certainly aren't reclaiming anything. And you certainly aren't being feminist, by any definition.

Where did I even imply such a thing? You're inserting thoughts into my head and words into my mouth.

Then what was the point of all this:

I'll have you know you're talking to a gay man here. I've been called all sorts of fun things, like sissy, pansy, fag, cocksucker, queen, fairy, to name the nicer ones - all based on my sexual orientation and some stereotype people have over it.

I've had people assume I couldn't catch a baseball, work on a car, run track, play football, or even dress in anything but a "gay" way - all based on my sexual orientation and some stereotype people have over it.

I've had to stand by while people made insulting gay jokes within earshot of me, made disparaging remarks about something being "gay", start spouting homophobic nonsense, talk about how evil I was and how I should be killed - all based on my sexual orientation and some stereotype people have over it.

If you want to believe you're the only person who suffers because someone says hurtful things, you really need to get over yourself, m'dear. I don't need some judgmental nebshit like you picking apart the things people say to find some cause célèbre for the ultra-feminist movement. Seriously, shut the fuck up about your personal prejudices already.

The only reason to bring that up is to shut up the woman you're talking to, by trying to play oppression olympics.

You and I have both been the victims of patriarchy and homophobia. That doesn't make it okay for us to then turn around and say sexist things.

Then you misread me. Remember, I watch someone I love very much paid less for what she does than a man simply because she is a woman. Whatever words are thrown at her, they are just words - the real injury is that she has to be treated like a second-class citizen.

Just words? And yet you complained about words like faggot and gay being used as insults. Make up your mind.

In any case, even if you don't mind when someone calls your mother a bitch, I don't have to feel the same way. I do have a right to speak up against a culture that normalizes sexist insults against my friends and family.

Who said that either my mother or I were even attempting to reclaim it? For that matter, who the fuck are you to insert yourself into a relationship I have with my own mother? I'm not undermining her at all. You can't just declare a thing like that by fiat.

It's not a subjective question. I know that words actually have effects on people.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 26, 2009 11:13 PM

Ryan, you silly twit,

I wasn't trying to associate you with anything. Believe it or not, it isn't all about you.

I hope people watch the videos about women's movements in Afghanistan and do what they can:

http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/2009/07/women-in-afghanistan-some-revolutionary.html

Posted by: Bob | August 26, 2009 11:19 PM

#227 &

#263
Ich thy i(diot) c(ravings)

universal, comprehensive coverage= socialized health care, but for you "entitlement bottom feeders" Teddy was on clue, CLUELESS

Its been real and its been fun and it has been REAL FUN listening to you "entitlement bottom feeders" suck and squirm but some of us came up with a plan formalized from a Pre-Adamite world---Working for a Living--and rest prepares us for that. I will rest peacefully tonight at you liberals expense.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 26, 2009 11:23 PM

If I'm talking to a woman and she happens to say some guy is a dick, I don't think of that as misandry. Sometimes it just means the guy is a dick.

And it's easy enough to overlook, because men in general do not have to live with the same results of sexism that women in general have to live with. But if the roles were reversed, then you might understandably bristle when a man who's just speaking his mind is implicated as a dick, that is, implicated not simply as a person who is wrong, but as a man who has stepped out of his proper gendered place.

Gendered insults are no good for anyone. They're not contributing to a world where men are paid 4/5 of what women are paid, but still, they're no good for anyone.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 26, 2009 11:28 PM

Posted by: Bob | August 26, 2009 11:19 PM

blah blah blah blah blah

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 26, 2009 11:34 PM

I should hope so. I had to take like a month to catch my breath.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 26, 2009 11:43 PM

MAJeff - Now just what do you mean by that smarty pants blah, blah, blah?

So good to see you back here!

Oh, and eat you're heart out, I have Cherokee Purple tomatoes marinating in lavender vinegar and Ruben basil for lunch, with goat cheese and pickled french green beans. Beat that my saucy darling!

Posted by: Bob | August 26, 2009 11:49 PM

This is more fun than should be allowed for a hundred and eleven year old man. You liberal yellow shitters have given new meaning to "what a waste of skin" but I have to cut a rick or 2 of wood tomorrow, winter will be here soon in the Yucon and we will have to party later!!

Let me get this straight ---

Obama's health care plan will be written by a committee whose head say she doesn't understand it,

passed by a Congress that hasn't read it and whose members will be exempt from it,

signed by a president who smokes,

funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes,

overseen by a surgeon general who is obese,

and financed by a country that is broke.

and you're dead buddy will get it named after him

What could possibly go wrong?

Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 27, 2009 12:03 AM

I think all of you will feel better if you agree to disagree and move on.

*End of unsolicited advice*

Goodnight.

Posted by: Bob | August 27, 2009 12:10 AM

#278 ich thy i(diot) c(ravings)

You implying I am alias Willie? I don't hide behind any man. You want to test that, bring your liberal snake skin here to the Yukon and I'll furnish the dogs and sled for your final trek so I can twist your head off and shit down your neck.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 27, 2009 12:18 AM

Or, you could use a definition that people actually agree upon: Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

And the very idea that there is such a thing as a "bitch" and that a woman can be a "bitch" is exactly such stereotyping. Using the word is behavior that promotes the perpetuation of the stereotype. This is obvious.

It was a single word used as an insult. There was no sexist context to it. Use of a sexist word doesn't immediately indicate sexist beliefs.

Three times, now, three times I explain that you can say something that is sexist even if you do not feel a burning hatred for women in your heart.

The only problem anyone has yet been able to describe concerning my usage of the word is that I am a man.

Who said this and when? I am surprised by this assertion, because it is still objectively sexist when a woman uses the word "bitch" as an insult. So please, point me to where this was said.

Sure. Sometimes, I act like the stereotype in a deliberate manner to provoke some poor asshole's oversized male ego, prompting the insult. But I have the ability to choose whether to be offended by what someone else says.

That's a non sequitur. Whether or not you feel offended by the behavior is a subjective reaction, and it does not change the fact that the behavior is objectively homophobic.

You appear to have a deeply ingrained misunderstanding of these topics. Homophobia doesn't become not-homophobia just because you decide to shrug it off.

The word itself doesn't have the power - it's the expression of bigotry that exists before it was ever uttered. In order for you to say I made a sexist remark, you must first show that I am sexist.

That's just false. Children often learn to say homophobic things because of the culture they grow up in. But that doesn't mean we don't correct their behavior.

When a little kid calls another kid a fag, he might not even know what the word means, but that doesn't change the objective fact that the cultural acceptance of the insult perpetuates homophobia.

Stereotypes about women are reinforced when you call a woman a bitch as an insult. You can't change this, because you can't control what happens when the words leave your mouth or keyboard. She doesn't need to be offended, and you don't need to hate women, but the act is objectively sexist: "behavior that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender."

Oh - and you misread my response to SC in the same way she did. You presumed sexism before reading it. I was stating that the word can be used to attack men and women equally, if for different reasons. It still remains just a word.

No, for the fourth time, I did not presume anything in your head. It is objective fact that your description of the word "bitch" is a description of how to attack both men and women in sexist ways with the same word.

Again, again, again, doesn't necessarily mean that I believe you're a sexist in your heart. You really need to stop putting these words in the mouths of everyone who's criticizing your behavior.

She said essentially the same thing I did, that what you said was sexist. She didn't imply that you must necessarily have a burning hatred of women in order to say it. You inferred more than she said. I daresay you were being ... hypersensitive.

So, giving someone a chance to drop an issue is being hypersensitive?

Quite clearly I said that inferring that someone is calling you a misogynist, when they are only calling your words misogynistic, is inferring more than they said. That inference is hypersensitive.

Sure. The goal was to get her to realize she's been playing "oppression olympics" with me and every other person here.

No, clearly she was not. She never at any point said that women were suffering worse than gay men.

I made up my mind long ago that they were "just words" and that I did not need to be insulted by them.

How nice for you. But you don't get to decide that for other people. For example, you don't get to decide that some gay kid who's tired of being called a fag should just get over it, instead of fighting back.

So your decision about how words are going to affect you is just that, your decision. It has no further implication on what anyone else should decide to put up with.

Sure, you do. So do that. I don't need you to make wild accusations of me and impugn my character over a single word I used, though.

Five times now.

You mean you know they have an effect on you. What matters to me most are the attitudes from whence the words come. I'm not going to go wacko over a straight guy using the word "fag" to insult me because I don't need to be insulted by the word. I'll instead take the lighter approach to changing his attitudes of gay people. What I won't do is attack the guy and make him defensive, because I could have been wrong about his attitudes in the first place!

Six times.

If you feel like you have to live your life in fear and never fight back, I'm sorry for you. Some

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 27, 2009 12:24 AM

Ryan you need to take your medication.
No, I do not find it offensive when someone older and wiser than me dresses me down for being stupid. Usually they are right. You aren't.

Yes, you are rude and insulting. Congratulations, we've never seen that before. If you find so much about the commenters here to be offensive why are you staying? The regulars aren't going to change.

Right now you are a troll in a blender and it's slightly amusing. Shortly, you will just be a blustering troll and we will all be bored.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 27, 2009 12:34 AM

What you're not yet seeing is that this is what SC has done to several people here - I have watched it several times, even when I did not get involved. When she did it to me the last time, I let it go. This time, I did not. I pointed out her behavior to everyone here and made sure it was known to be unacceptable. Please don't defend her in doing something you would not like done to yourself.

What on earth are you babbling about?

And I am not "off the hook" here. This thread has been insulting and degrading to many people. In case you haven't noticed, people have generally been ignoring the three-post-rule before flaming someone else. I tried to give SC a chance to correct her misconceptions (in an admittedly confrontational way), but she chose to press ahead with her judgments of me. She is just as wrong for her behavior towards myself and several others regardless of the value of the beliefs supporting it.

Look - I'm half asleep. Make an argument. Support it with evidence.

I was not wrong in my use of the word "bitch"n***** bitch to insult a womanblack woman. I was simply rude and insulting.

Oh, well, that's OK, then.

Some people around here seem to want to attach too much significance to the words people use while ignoring the attitudes that generated them.

What could those be?, I wonder...

Posted by: pdferguson | August 27, 2009 12:51 AM

Bobby babbled:

We don't like you, get used to it.

Who's this "we" you speak of, snookums? As far as I can see, you only speak for yourself, and badly at that.

You can believe me when I say we don't need another rightwing douchebag here, we've seen plenty. If you have something interesting, thoughtful, or insightful to offer, you're welcome to join the conversation. Otherwise, I'm afraid all you're going to get is a steady stream of increasingly idiotic, vitriolic exchanges. You, of course, will be part of that. They, of course, will outnumber you...

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 27, 2009 1:13 AM

Patricia, OM #309:

Right now you are a troll in a blender and it's slightly amusing. Shortly, you will just be a blustering troll and we will all be bored.

Fine. If you want to play a game, I can do that. Unlike what you claim, I like the vast majority of the regulars here - I just think that some of them (yourself included) get a bit high-minded about the things others say because you feel offended. If that's what you want to feel, I will just make sure it continues. Let me know when you're ready to admit you don't like being judged for attitudes you don't possess, dear.

SC, OM #311:

I was not wrong in my use of the word "bitch"n***** bitch to insult a womanblack woman. I was simply rude and insulting.

Turnabout is fair play, as they say. Let me know when you're ready to admit you're just as bad as the people you claim use offensive (*shriek!*) words in your presence.

----
You know, I tire of having to do this nearly every time someone feels that bug wiggling in his or her ass. I do not have to be politically correct just to make people feel better about themselves. I do not have to mince my words and pussyfoot around others' social tensions. Grow up.

Now can we please stop policing words around here? I would like to be able to express the fullness of my thoughts so I can have their substance challenged and not the words I choose to use. I'm not here so people with childish behaviors can nitpick at me for things I didn't express.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 27, 2009 1:28 AM

Ryan, It's amusing when you trolls flower. The colors are lovely, the scent, not so much.

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 27, 2009 1:33 AM

Patricia, OM: #316

Ryan - You are way over the line.

I don't believe you are gay. You are a crappy christian troll. No gay man ever presented himself in such a disgusting manner on this blog.

But to clear the record for people who are paying attention: I am a gay male atheist who has become tired of self-righteous hypocrites policing others' words around here. I do not appreciate other people telling me what I think and what I should say. If you are in doubt as to the facts, then Google is your friend. I don't hide who I am.

And Patricia, let me make it very clear that I object not to you but your behavior in regards to this situation. I actually consider you to be generally well-reasoned and interesting to read. But I am not going to make exceptions to my standards on how people should be treated just because I happen to like someone. Same goes for SC, by the way. When she's not on one of her ultra-feminist rants, I find her comments highly interesting and insightful. Again, I won't exempt her behavior towards me and others just because I appreciate her work here.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 27, 2009 1:44 AM

I was not wrong in my use of the word "bitch"n***** bitch to insult a womanblack woman. I was simply rude and insulting.

So, your best defense is to first disclaim any responsibility for the things you said to provoke this problem, and then you try putting words in my mouth - which further assume attitudes I do not possess? Okay, I can go with that.

Further evidence of stupidity and illiteracy on your part, Ryan.

SC was not putting words in your mouth or accusing you of being racist.

She was showing you how patently stupid your argument would sound with a racist slur added instead of just a sexist slur. Sometimes it's easier to understand these things when we start with something we're more familiar with. And everybody's familiar with how that word, as an insult, is objectively racist, right?

Right?

You know, I tire of having to do this nearly every time someone feels that bug wiggling in his or her ass. I do not have to be politically correct just to make people feel better about themselves. I do not have to mince my words and pussyfoot around others' social tensions. Grow up.

No one is asking you to be politically correct. Patricia was asking you to be considerate of other people. But even that seems to be too much work for you.

Ohhh, poor you! It's such hard work to not call women bitches! It's just too much, how could you bear to go on? You're right, Ryan, we should coddle you and your weak mind. It's not fair that you should have to contend out here in the real world, outside of your solipsistic bubble.

Posted by: Kseniya | August 27, 2009 1:51 AM

It's like listening to a bunch of Miss Manners wannabes all in the same room.

Now THAT is a new one.

Posted by: windy | August 27, 2009 1:55 AM

Roughly where in the Yukon are you, Bob? I imagine some of the liberal readers here are your neighbors.

Yukon, isn't that in one of them soshulist countries with universal health care? Just like Kennedy would have wanted.

Posted by: Will | August 27, 2009 2:06 AM

CORRECTION with apologies to Neil.

My post #246 is in reply to Ryan Egesdahl's comment #164 NOT to Neil's comment #189. Edited for name, reproduced below:

#164
Ryan E

In whose accounts that Saddam treated his prisoners well. Gee,let me see, in the 1991 Gulf War, we were shown badly allied beaten and tortured pilots on national TV. After the Shi'ite revolt and Kurd uprising after the Gulf War, thousands of Shi'ite were murdered in Abu Graib. Ever heard of the Iron maiden. If you don't believe , Goggle the damn thing and you can read the words of Iraqi survivors of Saddam's brutality.

Whose lies, Ryan. If I was not mistaken, in Clinton's 2nd term, the Democratic party including Ted Kennedy was almost wishing for the invasion of Iraq especially in 1998-1999 to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Funny isn't it , that everybody got the same information from 1996 until 2003 and everything becomes a lie when the Republican president acted on the information that everybody thought was valid prior to 2003.

Ted Kennedy helped the working class?? In whose world, Giselle. The only people he helped the most are the union leaders and their favorite people. The rank and file got the shaft. But truthfully, Ryan, the person he helped the most is himself. Haven't you notice that the laws he helped passed never applies to himself or his family or his political allies and friends. So spare me the outrage, I have live in a country where rich politicians were supposedly for the working class, only to find out later that those bastards were only interested in themselves being in power . One thing is for sure, compared to Ted Kennedy, those Filipino politicians were ranked amateurs.

Ryan, let me tell you something very important. In a Constitutional Republic, everybody is much better off not only with term limits, but also the rejection of political familial aristocracy in the government.We don't need the Kennedys, the Coumos, the Bushes, the Daleys , the Clintons and others like them to be continuously be in elected or appointed office. The sooner we get real people with real jobs in the Senate and Congress, the faster we will be out of this mess.

Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 27, 2009 2:09 AM

Jesus Christ, the horse has been flogged so much there are only a couple of bones left.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 27, 2009 2:13 AM

That's like watching a person defend their racism by accusing others of reverse-racism

Semi-OT: I still find it surreal all those old, white men calling Sonia Sotomayor a "reverse racist". On the plus side I think the Republicans are on their way to losing another minority.

As for offensive words, I'll just say if you know certain words to be sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. then it's probably best not to use it unless you want to come across as sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. and/or want the flak that will follow. You are perfectly free to say whatever you want and others are perfectly free to criticize you for it.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 27, 2009 2:21 AM

@SC, strange gods before me: I will thank the both of you to stop behaving like you've won some grand prize. You haven't.

*snort* (I think that means we have)

SC, you were the one who scratched out words in my dialogue and inserted far worse. You did that, not me.

Racist language is far worse than sexist language, eh? How so?

You're trying to infer a lot by a single word, and you keep doing so.

As sgbm has repeatedly pointed out to you, no. We're talking about the language and the language alone.

Like Patricia, you refuse to see your own position in this problem.

That's absurd. I'm perfectly clear on my position, which is opposed to racist or sexist language.

I can recognize that you are offended by the use of the word "bitch", but I am not beholden to cease using the word merely because of that. Tough shit.

And I'm not beholden to refrain from calling you a virulent fungal infection. Tough shit.

I don't know where you get off calling me racist, though. I was quoting you on that one. I am careful of when I use racist terms to make sure it's clear I am not endorsing racist attitudes.

*resnort*

You just got yourself offended

Hilarious. Imagine that.

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 27, 2009 2:30 AM

Kseniya #323:

Now THAT is a new one.

strange gods before me #326:

I have made the attempt to argue my case, and I remain willing to accept criticism.

Waaa waaaaa it's so haaaard not to call women bitches! Oh it's just too much to ask! You shouldn't stand for it! How dare anyone ask you to think about your own words?

@Will #327: I am not about to indulge your nuttery in this. I was talking to Shaun, not you. And if you would like to know how Saddam treated his prisoners better than we do, ask the Red Cross - the international authority on the subject. At least Saddam had the good sense to allow the Red Cross access to prisoners.

Posted by: Irenicus | August 27, 2009 2:34 AM

I'm not getting involved in this dispute, and I don't want to condemn SC. Racist though IS far worse than sexist, in my opinion. Within the last century, racism has brought us the Holocaust and lynching. I don't think sexism comes close there. Maybe for a feminist in the Islamic world sexism would be a more serious issue, but I take it none of us live there.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 27, 2009 2:43 AM

Then what is this strange quest you seem to be on in which you attempt to prove that I am sexist

Where have I once tried to prove that you are sexist? I think I've said three times now that I believe you are not.

I have been trying to get you to look at your unwitting contribution to sexism. This is not any great and intractable request. To be honest, I have never seen anyone so dense on such a simple topic.

or you are simply stating that I am a naughty boy for offending someone with a word.

Again, this one for the third time, nobody has to be offended. The use of "fag" as an insult is objectively a homophobic action, regardless of whether you allow yourself to feel offended as the target of the action.

There is a culture out there beyond your skull, and my friends and family who are women have to live in it. If you're going to contribute to sexism in that culture, I'm going to criticize you for it.

Stop saying sexist things, and I'll stop criticizing you.

Take your politically-correct attitudes and shove 'em where it hurts.

Good news, everybody. Calling women bitches for expressing their opinions is a good thing, because it's not politically correct. Thanks for informing us, Ryan.

By your logic here, I should be calling out everyone who uses the word "Rethuglican" to describe Republicans or the word "Christard" to refer to a Christian.

Unless people are born Republican and Christian, and the culture is prejudicial toward them for these traits they can't change, that's a fucking terrible analogy. Really. Didn't you ever notice how pathetic it was when the Christians used it during Prop 8?

Posted by: Carolina | August 27, 2009 3:00 AM

@338 Re. Sahun/Ryan Egesdahl/sgbm

Speaking of "hate speech" in background of Ryan's recent usage... if it's too strong to call it hate, i can back off and we can agree on a less inflammatory term.

My point is not to label him but to say something about this kind of thing.

As sgbfm/sc suggested, a useful analogy that might cut through some of the cog-diss and disparities is that of racism. Most of us here understand what the beef
against racism is and would not use racist language, at least in addressing non-whites in a confrontational situation. We would understand -- in a compassionate sense, not just intellectually -- the centuries of pain that
might well up with such usage,[...]

Shaun, they have their own issues among the A-A community, where some of them are questioning why it is NOT OK for non-whites to use the N word, but it IS OK to call EACH OTHER the N word.

and even those of us with ideologies of freedom of speech and if-you-react-it's your-issue-asshole-nothing-to-do-with-me [...]

I don't subscribe to that ideology. Insults said in anger are more about that person than whoever it's directed at. If I take it to heart, then I must believe them on some level, which doesn't mean it's OK for them to keep acting like that, but they are. I can do everything to tell them it's not OK, but unless they really want to stop because they see WHY it's not OK, then they won't.

I WAS in an abusive marriage and i walk away from any potential abusive relationships, instead of getting a charge out of continuing to duke it out with assholes. Plain and simple. I leave the DUK-ing it out to Ryan!

would hesitate before addressing someone as a fucking nigger, wog, kike or whatever, at least in a confrontational situation on a forum. This is not just PC but a real knowing that the "benefits" of letting it rip will not likely outweigh the
negatives. (And yes, there might be exceptions.)

So why does this sense not arise in the case of sexist "hate speech"?

Because maybe the Dr. Phil-esque question, "How's that working for ya?" has been asked. It doesn't look to me like the racial war has made more in-roads than the feminist. The feminist movement by the way, never finished the job, now women just have to do everything, instead of there being any REAL equality. Lest men here start protesting, it's a fact that more and more, women who make more money than their husbands have to pay alimony and child support to them, also, more men are looking for women to support them.

So who knows? The pendulum swings. Maybe it will land in the middle, in our lifetimes, maybe not, maybe never.

I imagine it's because we have not yet become sensitized to the issues involved. Perhaps women are too closely involved in intimate relationships with the perps (men) to be seen properly. And the women's movement is still fairly recent historically, and sexism has not yet been understood as something as unfair, systemic and unconscious as racism.

I don't think that's it, Shaun, but male/female dichotomy is definitely closer to yin yang principles than the racial issues-- it's very core stuff.

It is institutionalized individually and collectively. So "fucking bitch" rolls off the tongue, and "you cunt," from people who would not use racist terminology in the same way.

Because those words have more punch across the board. I've noticed how much more freely and frequently all kinds of potentially offending words are used in day to day communications, like, no big deal. They've certainly lost their impact with me.

One has to pick their battles, imo.

The collective lack of sensitivity makes it possible to discount such usage as "a joke," when it is far from a joke for the recipient, and most likely not really intended as a joke by the perp either. But to see it? There are many barriers still. Try the racism analogy test.

Again, I don't think the two can be compared in quite that way.

Posted by: windy | August 27, 2009 3:03 AM

Go fuck yourself, you pretentious asshat. Take your politically-correct attitudes and shove 'em where it hurts.

Er, are you the same Ryan Egesdahl who wrote this some time ago on Ed's blog?

Let me be frank for a moment, my friends. I am highly disappointed with the behavior of some commenters on this blog. How very shameful your behavior has been! I try to discuss a point or two, maybe even get people to slow down their judgment of others, and I get insults and other nastiness in return. Why? How are you any different from those you disagree with, other than the substance of your commentary, when you end up doing the same things to others that are done to you?

Hmm, maybe there's some sort of lesson here, or not.

Posted by: Shaun | August 27, 2009 3:21 AM

#341

Shaun, they have their own issues among the A-A community, where some of them are questioning why it is NOT OK for non-whites to use the N word, but it IS OK to call EACH OTHER the N word.

Yes, this is an interesting aspect of N-word and other suchies usage.

AFAIC, those who have been oppressed have a right that "we" don't have, until such time as they decide otherwise.

i walk away from any potential abusive relationships, instead of getting a charge out of continuing to duke it out with assholes. Plain and simple. I leave the DUK-ing it out to Ryan! I leave the DUK-ing it out to Ryan!

That's beautiful, but not all can walk this way.

So who knows? The pendulum swings. Maybe it will land in the middle, in our lifetimes, maybe not, maybe never.

That particular pendulum may be swinging because it is no so against the interests of men.

I don't think that's it, Shaun, but male/female dichotomy is definitely closer to yin yang principles than the racial issues-- it's very core stuff.

Very core stuff indeed, and precisely because of that, so hard to see.

Because those words have more punch across the board. I've noticed how much more freely and frequently all kinds of potentially offending words are used in day to day communications, like, no big deal. They've certainly lost their impact with me.

One has to pick their battles, imo.

But WHY do these words have more punch? There's a lot of possibilities of

psychobabble here, and i have been known . . . later maybe :-)

Again, I don't think the two can be compared in quite that way.

Okey dokey, doesn't work for you. Perhaps because you're (largely?) out of it.

Thanks, Shaun

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 27, 2009 3:30 AM

@Windy #343: Yes, that was me. It was also a different context (I said nothing that offended people so much as raised uncomfortable questions) - and it was a tactic that did not work. People there continued to do as is being done here to infer beliefs I do not state. Worse, they persisted in making claims as to my character in some threads based on a simple position statement. What that means is that direct confrontation of the issue is also not working because people who think they are smart also tend to think they are correct.

So, direct confrontation is out as well. What's left? That's the lesson to be learned here. I've just about given up on SC and sgbm because they keep talking about what I have said as if it stands on its own - which it does not. Communication is not a one-way process.

I have tried a practical demonstration of why it does not help to answer anger with anger, and you see the results before you. I could have simply ignored SC's baiting, but I did not; for that, I do apologize. From now on, that is exactly what I will do.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 27, 2009 3:45 AM

That works both ways, though. It's funny how people who feel offended also tend to believe that their views are superior, though.

Nope. Nobody here except you has tried to place themselves above criticism, with your stomping and whining of "you are not the judge of me... I won't have it."

"Bitch", however, has a descriptive meaning - at least it does to me, coming from the usage of the verb form - that is independent of any sexist meaning.

Ha! What a bullshitter. Your own definition was explicitly gendered and entirely about a stereotype against women: "female that barks, a figurative term used to describe a woman (or a man, to invoke his hatred of the opposite gender) who has nothing reasonable to say but a lot of unreasonable and hateful things to yell."

And as I have repeatedly pointed out to both of you, the language doesn't matter if the meaning wasn't there in the first place.

Wrong, and now blatantly dishonest, as I have several times given you the example of how kids, with no intent, can spread homophobia. And you have studiously avoided addressing this example, because it so obviously demonstrates how wrong you are.

Right now, I have the power to send you into paroxysms of rage just by uttering a single phrase - even if I don't believe a word of it. How does that feel, my dear?

That's an outright admission of trolling.

You seem unwilling to believe that you took the wrong tack when presenting your concerns to me. You could have simply said, "I do not like that word because it reminds me of sexist attitudes. Would you please choose another one?" and I would gladly have accommodated you.

Bullshitter. I was entirely polite to you in the beginning, and you were determined to show off how much you don't care, and how cool you can be for being "un-PC" and dismissing everyone else.

but you decided to act like some kind of righteous prude and tell me which words not to use.

Actually I'm pretty sure this is a lie too. I'm not going to read the whole thread again to make sure, but I don't think you can find a single quote of SC telling you not to use the word.

What you will find is Feynmaniac's perfectly good advice: "if you know certain words to be sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. then it's probably best not to use it unless you want to come across as sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. and/or want the flak that will follow."

But no, that's too hard for you, too much work, too much of an unreasonable imposition.

I tell you what I mean and you wave your hands and willfully reinterpret my words.

Bullshit. Obvious lies again. All I've been doing is asking you to think. I have not once called you sexist, even though you have at least a dozen times accused me of doing so. Now that's willful misrepresentation.

Like I just said to SC, you came at it the wrong way. You both act like you're superior and you have the right to tell people which words not to use as if you have some superior moral attitude.

Nope. No one has told you what to say or what not to say.

All I've done is point out the objective fact that calling a woman a bitch for expressing her opinion is a sexist action.

Again, you're free to keep on doing that if you want other people to think you just might in fact be a sexist. This has been an intervention for your sake. I've not once called you sexist. I'm trying to help you readjust so that you won't come off as sexist to anyone else. This is a favor, even if you're too self-centered to realize it.

I'm not going along with your need to feel offended anymore.

Fourth time now, I'm not offended and offense has nothing to do with it. Actions are objectively sexist or they are not; offense on the part of the target is not necessary.

-----
Ryan, your original definition of sexism was unintentionally hilarious. It's fine for what it does, but it surely didn't help you make your case. See, that's an academic definition that focuses on sexism as an institution.

Notice how it only mentions male supremacy and patriarchy. Under this definition, there is no such thing as sexism against men, because there is no institutional matriarchy in our world.

Under this definition, you cannot accuse SC or anyone of misandry, because there literally is no such thing as misandry.

What, nobody else is laughing? Well, I thought it was funny. I guess I have a dry humor.

Anyway, for you to make your case that no one can participate in sexism without deliberate intent, you have to make the case that either:

1. we do not live in a culture which tends to discriminate against women, or

2. it is not possible to accidentally make a comment that reinforces discrimination.

Good night.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 27, 2009 3:49 AM

"Bitch", however, has a descriptive meaning - at least it does to me, coming from the usage of the verb form - that is independent of any sexist meaning.

Oh, sure:

"judgmental/hypocritical/unreasonable bitch"

aren't at all sexist.

Do a search for "Sarah Palin antiscience" on this blog for a discussion of the intricacies of this.

Guess what? I also don't use the word "cunt" when describing anyone for the same reason as "nigger", stated above.

Guess what? What you do use is the same as "lazy spic," "dumb n****," etc.

And as I have repeatedly pointed out to both of you, the language doesn't matter if the meaning wasn't there in the first place. Communication isn't just about words and their meanings. You're ignoring subtext. What you have done is to insert a subtext that does not exist; when I correct you on it, you act innocent about the whole matter and resort to taking insubstantial potshots. Gee - I think that means I won some grand prize! Not!

You idiot, the meaning/connotations of words transcends your intention. Is that so difficult to grasp? I'm so fucking sick of having this conversation over and over and over. The word itself is sexist. That doesn't mean everyone who uses it is sexist, but it's naive not to recognize this, and when it's pointed out and you continue to use it you're acting in a sexist manner.

Right now, I have the power to send you into paroxysms of rage just by uttering a single phrase - even if I don't believe a word of it.

Um, no.

How does that feel, my dear?

Like you're an asshole, darling. You seem to enjoy demonstrating no character. You're an arrogant ass, and yet if people prefer that you stop acting like an arrogant, privileged ass, they should bat their eyelashes and show you the proper deference in requesting that you do so. No. Fuck you.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 27, 2009 3:58 AM

Someone around here got upset at the word I used and not how or why, and decided to call it a sexist word, that's all.

So you were in fact referring to a female dog ? Only unless you were, it is hard to see how you can maintain "bitch" does not have no sexist connotations, even if you do not intend to use the word in a sexist manner.

Posted by: Walter | August 27, 2009 4:23 AM

An animal that is constantly abused, will react to its abuser and in many cases will attack another that invokes a resemblance of the original abuser. There is a trust broken
and often times can not be mended.

What I see as the main difference between man and animal is the ability to use abstract thinking. It is only man that can teach its young and other species new things learned.

You can train a dog to not shit in the house, but without human intervention, its offspring will shit in the house, with no reprimand from the bitch (for you faint of heart, bitch = female mother dog). (Side note: Hmmm...calling one a
"bitch" may be slighting the dog.)

You can train animals to do all types of things, but NONE can train their offspring. Each must be "trained" from the starting point by a human. A human "trained" can pass on the training to others while an animal cannot.

Is Ryan animal? Do we need PZ to intervene?

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 27, 2009 4:31 AM

@SC, sgbm:

Go right ahead and act like you're in possession of all the facts. You've been doing that since this whole fiasco began, despite all my attempts to correct it. You can bring in all the things I did not say to infer things I did not mean to your heart's desire. I'm not entertaining your fantasies anymore. You bore me.

But, sgbm? Calling me a liar is a fair stretch however you look at it, especially when you've been trying to present my argument as something it is not. My definition for sexism? It was simply one I googled on a moment's notice. I chose that one because it was from a feminist site and therefore from a feminist view. When you gave a different definition, I accepted it. (And by the way, the one I used also referenced personal sexism, but I don't think you visited the link to see the original.) Now you try to present my arguments as willfully ignorant, despite the fact that I have accepted most of your counterclaims. Who's the liar?

You keep trying to focus on a single word and now I know why - your working premise is a false dichotomy. For any act (or word) that is perceived as sexist, it is not true that such act is either intentionally sexist or unintentionally sexist. Sometimes the perception is just plain wrong. You have spent this entire evening trying to infer my character from the use of a single word. Everything else here is just fluff.

You don't have an inside view into my internal biases at all; you've just been spending your time working from a presumption that a single word can be sexist. When I reject that presumption, you tell me that it must be true because of your false dichotomy. I point out that your false dichotomy implies that acts cannot be unintentionally sexist and you tell me that I'm misinterpreting you. But then you say:

Anyway, for you to make your case that no one can participate in sexism without deliberate intent, you have to make the case that either...

Do you see what you did there? By both of the criteria you gave me, and the fact that you have defined "bitch" to be an inherently sexist term by definition, you have just told me that intent had nothing to do with the sexism! I could just as easily define "balls" to be an inherently bigoted term, show similar criteria as to what you did (and they would be as accurate as yours), then wait for you to say it. I can be offended all I want and it doesn't matter whether you meant the term as bigoted or not, even if you knew beforehand that some, but not all people consider "balls" to be a bigoted term.

You have claimed the power to censor my speech simply by defining it as unacceptable. I have no choice in the matter because you had the intent to consider my words offensive before I did. I can't possibly be "unintentionally" sexist because you have presumed the intent before I spoke, just by dint of one word. Either I know that some people consider "bitch" to be a sexist term, and when I use it I was "intentionally" sexist because I intentionally used the word, or you inform me that some people consider the word sexist and you remove my ability to be "unintentionally" sexist.

This is how censorship works. Someone considers a word to be offensive and removes the ability of people to be "unintentionally" offensive by saying "well, you knew before you used it or you didn't know. But now you do!"

It's even worse for sexism, though, because it's societally-based. You and others have stated a few times (or at least implied such) that I should have known that "bitch" is a sexist term because I am a member of this society. You made that explicit with your two conditions. You had already removed my ability to be "unintentionally" sexist before you even met me! I was tried and convicted in the high court of public opinion for using a word you were ready to draw and quarter someone for.

No, I do not accept either your premise or your conclusions. You are both, quite simply, fusspot busybodies who want to be offended at the simplest things. I won't let you censor my words because you want to feel good about yourselves. My words have a meaning I give to them, not you. You could have simply asked after my intent or you could have expressed your concern nicely and left it to me to decide whether to use a word you didn't like. You did neither, and now you complain that I seem pissed off about it. I wonder why?

Posted by: Walter | August 27, 2009 4:42 AM

Ryan Egesdahl #357

Right on bro!

It is not the words that hurt, it is when what is spoken or written that hits the mark straight on and that it is something that one would prefer to remain hidden not only from others, but more importantly from themselves and now it is in the open. Now a decision needs to be made...attack the messenger, or face what is said straight on and deal with it[internal issues, cognitive biases, projections et al]. Words offered that hold no relevance are like raindrops running down a window. No friction, no response, no comment needed.

SC, sgbm brought up the PC games being employed today as a means to justify that words do hurt[demeaning, sexist, racist etc]. I totally disagree. The PC games are used as a means for further control of the masses and is used as a forceful means in an attempt to control people and their thoughts. Will it succeed? Look about you, it already has...even some of you, Pharyngulites, now accept it
as "gospel".

Now some of you will probably try twisting my words around to prove that I truly am evil because I don't agree with the PC games. Just to address that right now, I don't agree with the racist name calling and I have a problem with blacks calling each other nigger,when at the same time they are calling whitey on doing the same thing. Just a tad hypocritical, I'd say.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space | August 27, 2009 4:46 AM

Ryan, You contend that the word "bitch" is not inherently sexist, while "cockroach" is inherently racist. And yet I doubt that every Hutu who used the term had genocide in his heart. Often, the racial or sexist epithet serves the role of emphasizing the sameness of the speaker rather than the otherness of the target--and yet it does both. Speech has meaning not only to the speaker, but also to the audience, and extremists in the audience take comfort in extreme language.
Racist and sexist language is inherently imprecise--it can mean whatever the speaker--or the audience--wants it to mean. At best it is lazy.

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 27, 2009 4:52 AM

@Richard Eis: Semantics? Tell me where I was able to possibly defend myself here. I was up against people who wanted to censor me for using a word, and they pulled at all the heartstrings of people to do it. They did a fair job of looking reasonable, but the reality is that they just wanted me to stop using a word they didn't like and they couldn't provide a reason why not - other than some nebulous argument about "inherently sexist words" that I just don't get. "Fuck" isn't inherently offensive - it's just a description of sexual intercourse. People like to think "fuck" is offensive because of our society's squirminess towards sex. I don't get the relation between the two ideas.

Problem is, no matter how many times I stated I was not sexist or misogynist, they tried saying that the use of a single word was itself "unintentionally" sexist in any case. How do I defend against that? It's how censorship works! If they had simply asked me not to use a word because it reminded them of something it did not remind me, I would have happily removed it from my vocabulary here. But no - as per usual, I was attacked over its usage and made to look like a fool for trying to defend myself. Again - how can I defend against a thing when defense is considered tantamount to admission of guilt?

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 27, 2009 4:59 AM

@a_ray_in_dilbert_space: I claim that neither is inherently anything. The problem with calling Tutsis "cockroaches" is that you can't help the political context. Similarly, you can't help but have "nigger" be in a racist context. (Even if you're A-A, by the way. The belief that only members of the A-A community can call each other "nigger" is a racist idea on its face.) Calling someone a "bitch" doesn't imply any context at all - at least, not to me. As I have stated before here, I could have easily been persuaded that using "bitch" was not acceptable because of the context in which some people would receive it just by saying so nicely. (If it helps, I always have trouble determining things like that. It's an effect of Asperger's Syndrome I have not completely overcome.) Instead, I get the thought police trying to make a mountain out of a molehill and my own inability to let the baiting alone while I still could.

Posted by: Shaun | August 27, 2009 5:05 AM

Here, I shall simplify it for you Ryan Egesdahl:

You called a female poster Pam in Taos, a "bitch" ...

What would you have called a male poster if he said the same despicable things, as Pam in Taos did, about Ted Kennedy's death? Your argument seems to be that you could have used the word "bitch", because it is "just a word."

Could you have used a gender neutral term? "assclown", "asshat", "moron", "jerk", "maggot" or something else?

Think about it.

Posted by: Walter | August 27, 2009 5:22 AM

#367

Fact is that Ryan not just (rightly)attacked Pam in Taos' views about Kennedy's death, he also chose to attack her being a woman.

Let me elaborate.

For example, if a priest came over here and made some offending comments about Kennedy's death, it would be quiet appt to not just attack his views biut also his priesthood. We could say how his religious beliefs may have influenced his views.

If Ryan's intentions are not sexist, as he claims, what his comment nevertheless implies is that Pam's sick views on Kennedy were somehow influenced by her being a woman.

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 27, 2009 5:31 AM

@Walter: "Female that barks" is literally a female dog. Yeah, that didn't help, but I wasn't focused on someone taking that as a sexist remark. I have called men "bitch" as well, and it doesn't have to do with my interpretation of his gender. In fact, it has much more to do with his interpretation of his gender (insecurity), which is why I would use it as an insult to prod his insecurity.

In this context, "bitch" was actually just someone who kept barking incessantly, like a "bitch in heat". It wasn't about gender in any regard, but I didn't make that clear - though I did state that I had used it because she wouldn't stop yapping on loudly about things of little importance. And then chaos ensued and I never got back to it.

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 27, 2009 5:46 AM

@Walter: Thanks, but I'm not so proud of myself right now. I don't usually lose control like this - it represents a somewhat large step back for me in learning to communicate with other people effectively. That, and I was pretty damned nasty when I didn't need to be - emotion is another thing of which I easily lose control. But thanks for understanding.

Posted by: John Morales | August 27, 2009 5:51 AM

Ryan,

[1] In this context, "bitch" was actually just someone who kept barking incessantly, like a "bitch in heat". [2] It wasn't about gender in any regard, [...]

1. Pam made but the one post (I don't recall her posting here before, either), and a rather brief one at that.

2. It's understood you didn't intend sexism, but it was a gendered insult ('dog' would've been non-gendered).

My suggestion: cease to justify yourself on this thread; you're not in zugzwang.
I'd hope your ego should be able to handle that.

Posted by: maureen brian | August 27, 2009 6:21 AM

Health warning: another patronsing older woman here. Hi, Patricia!

I hope, Ryan, that one day when you are sober / grown up / in a fulfilling relationship - add to or delete from this list according to your own taste and judgement - you will read this whole thread again quietly.

By then, you will be able to see that when you were first called on the use of the word bitch the call was no more than a polite "Oy!" - nothing more.

Reading this straight through in the cold light of morning I can assert - and you have left the proof here for posterity - that it was your rabid defence of something possibly inadvertent in the first instance which called into question your understanding of the whole issue.

That defence was repetitive, laced with even more insults and personal attacks and far too long. Read it again and tell me I'm wrong!

If you really do have something to say on the role of language in the perpetuation of negative stereotypes - it's hard to tell - then perhaps you should in a calm and disciplined way write a book. Only, get yourself an editor - before you even start.

Posted by: clinteas | August 27, 2009 6:33 AM

Ryan,

I think your comment was stupid, uncalled for, and undoubtedly sexist, in whichever context you look at it, and your backpedalling was at times painful to watch.
You were however also the victim of a debating tactic that I despise but that is unfortunately not uncommon here, and trust me we have been through this with various words at length over time, which is to claim authority over the "real" meaning of the words you use and the "true" intentions and convictions you have, it is frustrating and pointless to engage this once it happens, might as well debate creationists.

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 27, 2009 6:45 AM

@clinteas: I'm not Catholic, but mea culpa. It really can't get any simpler than that. Whatever I might disagree with you about on how or why I said what I did would invariably be overshadowed by the fact that I let it continue for as long as I did. I'm just glad I'm taking a vacation starting this Friday, or I am afraid I would get worse. Lots of stress tends to make me more erratic (and I have had plenty), so I shouldn't have been surprised at anything I might have said here.

And no, I am not excusing myself; I have had the warning signs in my behavior that I am becoming erratic for some time now, and I did not do anything to mitigate its effects - or, even better, remove myself from the conversation altogether once I noticed my own behavior. It's over now, though. I'm on the downswing.

Posted by: clinteas | August 27, 2009 6:56 AM

Sorry mate, but you dont seem too erratic to me, you were just wrong, and you got called out.
Happens here a lot.
You noticed how some people try to take command of your own words, and thats what I object to myself.Only reason I commented.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 27, 2009 7:34 AM

The word doesn't have to have any connotations because it is just a word.

Now I know you are an idiot. Words are not just words. They have meanings, and often meanings beyond those the person using them intends. That you do not understand this tells us why you cannot understand what you have done wrong. It also suggests your intellect is unable to deal with sophisticated ideas like this.

You claim words exist in a vacuum is pathetic.

Posted by: aratina cage | August 27, 2009 8:30 AM

@DingoJack
I googled up a good transcript of that talk by Lenny Bruce at the Huffington Post (link) where it is contrasted with other cases ranging from comedic to highly inappropriate.

@Ryan Egesdahl

The belief that only members of the A-A community can call each other "nigger" is a racist idea on its face.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 27, 2009 8:43 AM

Ryan, why are you getting so upset about having your actions called sexist? It's only a word, free of any context or connotation, right?

Words have histories. That you can't see the use of "bitch" to refer to a woman is a gendered (and gendering) act, much less a sexist one...well, you may want to take some time and do a bit of reading and thinking. There are plenty of insults that don't do the work of reproducing a sexist culture ("fuckwit" is one of my faves), so why the desire to cling to one that does?

As an aside, as a (sometimes) flambouyant gay man, the only person I will ever refer to as a bitch is myself. And, dear, it ain't an insult.

Posted by: KI | August 27, 2009 9:02 AM

OK, I spent the rest of yesterday researching my contention that Reagan was responsible for the Iranian hostages being held until after the election (the October Surprise as it was called) and found that official inquiries determined it was false. I guess I missed that. The smarmy jolly uncle facade got under my skin to the point I was willing to accept any example of his venality as true, which was unfounded.

I sure like the learnin' I get here.

Posted by: Muhamad | August 27, 2009 9:44 AM

At a time when Nixon and Kissinger were support Pakistan's genocide of Bengalis in 1971, Edward Kennedy made a point of visiting those suffering.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 27, 2009 10:06 AM

Hee. I just flashed back to that waitress overhearing you at the pre-symphony breakfast place.

I honestly cannot remember what I said. All that comes to mind is a breakfast at Perkins in Ames, IA with an old roommate who burst out "I can't believe I let him in me!" as the waitress came to our table.

Best. Perkins. Breakfast. EVAH!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 27, 2009 10:21 AM

Whew... that was a tiring read... I'm glad you all were able to work it out.

I totally understand SC's (supported by many others) desire to get sexist terms used as insults out of the vernacular... and I also can see Ryan (who's posts I have long respected otherwise) feeling a little "PC policed" to some degree, which frankly can get a bit tiresome.

What I'm discouraged by is how quickly it escalated into a total whirlwind... SC's initial request for Ryan to clarify his use of the word "bitch" was I think tactful and rational enough (and perhaps even mildly playful) to have given Ryan a chance to retract it. Ryan replied by defending his use of it with a technicality of definition. That's when things went awry... SC's next post, clearly not buying Ryan's explanation, escalated to the use of the word "misogynist". It went downhill from there.

While I am by no means the most articulate or intelligent of the regulars here, I have learned to try to take criticism well if it is well intentioned. It's not always easy to do, but I find it works out for the best if I make the attempt. It happened to me in this very thread, in fact! Up at #58 I made a fairly blanket statement about the transparency of posters criticizing Kennedy for his personal escapades. A few posts later Nick... umm... I mean Knockgoats called me out on it (correctly) and I was forced to re-read it and qualify it. My first reaction was to defend my statement, but it was reactionary and I'm trying not to let my temper get the best of me these days (it's the Irish blood... heh).

At any rate, While I understand the grating nature of sexist remarks and the low tolerance for them she has, I would have liked to have seen SC give Ryan one or two more posts of gentle suggestion that he may have chosen a better insult, if for no other reason than he has earned a bit of leeway, I think, based on his posts to this point, which have been on the whole insightful, articulate and rational.

And at the same time I would have liked to have seen Ryan take the hint a little better from the get go, and despite his irritation at feeling unfairly mis-categorized based on his choice of words, maybe take the high road and concede that, even if he felt it was "word-policing", it IS still a sexist and potentially offensive term, and reply with something along the lines of "ok... I did not mean to offend... let me rephrase by calling Pam in Taos an unreasonable brain-dead fuck-wad of a shit-stain." Again, like Ryan, SC has more than earned at least that right, in my opinion

My temper gets the better of me more often than I'd like to admit... it takes some fortitude to be able to take a deep breath and come out and admit it the way Ryan did towards the end... and at the same time, SC, you need make no apologies for refusing to accept sexist insults as an acceptable means of derision. But I'd like to see the pharyngulites be a little less quick to jump down each other's throats. Especially when we're surrounded by fuckwits like Yukon (or is it Yucon) Bob.

OK... two cents added, I'll step down from the pulpit now. Sorry if I've inserted unwanted opinion...

Posted by: MarkM | August 27, 2009 10:40 AM

In the 1980s Reagan was demonized in liberal strongholds of New York and MA. What happened when he died? The Left had some decency, unlike what is being displayed by the Right now.

Posted by: becca | August 27, 2009 10:47 AM

I'm confused.

Why is it not-OK to call some one a bitch, but it's ok to call them a douchebag, a uniquely feminine piece of equipment? or ok to call someone a moron or a retard when those are derogatory words for someone who is mentally handicapped?

Posted by: Domesticated Zebra | August 27, 2009 10:52 AM

Just wait and watch on the day the former VP eventually passes away.

C'mon Shaun! Don't you know the Sith Lord Darth Cheney has the acquired the power to transcend death using the dark side of the Force? He'll never die! Muhahaha!

Hypocrites. That's all I've got to say.

"Hypocrite" doesn't do it anymore. Not equal to the task. We need a new word for a new time, this foul hour of the Left; a word that combines hypocrisy, malice, audacity and contempt for all people.

Posted by: Squid Stool | August 27, 2009 10:57 AM

#399

"In the 1980s Reagan was demonized in liberal strongholds of New York and MA. What happened when he died? The Left had some decency, unlike what is being displayed by the Right now."

O RLY?

"Controversy ensued during a live concert appearance in Ireland when British music act and ex-Smiths lead singer Morrissey announced to his fans that former President Ronald Reagan had died. The singer then added that he wished current President George W. Bush had died instead.

The concert crowd, attending the event at Dublin Castle, actually cheered upon hearing that Reagan died after a decade-long battle with Alzheimer's disease."

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/news2004/0604/060804-singer.htm

How's it feel to be a lying skank, MarkM?

Posted by: SC, OM | August 27, 2009 11:05 AM

Why is it not-OK to call some one a bitch, but it's ok to call them a douchebag, a uniquely feminine piece of equipment?

You might find this interesting (especially the comments):

http://www.feministing.com/archives/010494.html

or ok to call someone a moron or a retard when those are derogatory words for someone who is mentally handicapped?

I would say moron has long lost its "clinical" connection. Retard hasn't, and many people don't think it's OK to use it as an insult.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 27, 2009 11:12 AM

Squid Stool

Controversy ensued during a live concert appearance in Ireland...

You do know that Ireland isn't actually in the US... right? Or are you next going to try to make your point about the actions of the American left by describing the reaction in France?

No, no... you go on... you're doing great!

Posted by: Extinct Soul | August 27, 2009 11:13 AM

It can't be told often enough -

Mary Jo was in the back seat and, while he claimed he was just giving her a lift back to her hotel, it was widely thought that he had picked her up for sex. Kennedy swam ashore to save himself, but left Mary Jo to drown - in fact, it was even worse than that.

It was nine hours before he reported the accident. In the meantime, he walked back to his motel, complained to the manager about a noisy party, took a shower, went to sleep, ordered newspapers when he woke up and spoke to a friend and two lawyers before finally calling the police.

Divers later estimated that if he had called them immediately, they would have had time to pull out Mary Jo. She had not drowned, but had survived in an air pocket inside the car - she was asphyxiated only when the oxygen ran out several hours later.

Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1209313/Ted-Kennedy-The-Senator-Sleaze-drunk-sexual-bully--left-young-woman-die.html

Posted by: Rev. Dr. D. Fuzz M.D. | August 27, 2009 11:17 AM

@411

So Ted let her die in the car while he poured himself a scotch.

What a nice moral man.

Can only wonder how many other moral stalwarts are in the liberal senate.

Just marvelous people, so wonderful and caring.

Fucking incredible.

Posted by: Richard Eis | August 27, 2009 11:26 AM

-Problem is, no matter how many times I stated I was not sexist or misogynist, they tried saying that the use of a single word was itself "unintentionally" sexist in any case.-

As you seem to have worked out why the two statements you make here have nothing to do with each other I don't think I need do anything.

Welcome to Pharyngula. I hope you had fun ;)

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 27, 2009 11:36 AM

Ahhh... here come our lovely Limbaugh listeners... or is it the recently banned Shaun desperately trying to sneak in the back door with his christian message of love and tolerance?

Sorry, did Ronnie murder someone while drunk, extremely wealthy and privileged and get away with it because of his wealth and power?

I dunno. Maybe. He was pretty wealthy and privileged. Might have even done a better job of covering it up. By the way, what's "murder" got to do with anything? Or are you just asking general stupid questions?

How will Palin's, Larry Craig's, Mark Foley's, Newt's obits be devised by you lefties?

Well, I'm pretty sure I won't go and seek out blogs that I would never visit otherwise with the express intent of pissing on their memories. But then again, I'm not a right wing fuck-wad.

Sure they will, because you people are filthy scumbags.

Awww... we have another christian in our midst. I can tell from the smell of love.

Should we believe that the liberals posting outrage over people remembering who this guy was, that are the same people attacking Palin's and Cheney's children, are the same people who will be so moderate and considerate over George Bush's passing, or Rush's, or Hannity's...

Believe what you want if it makes you feel better about your own need to be a flaming asshat.

I don't think so.

I think you added an extra word at the end there... I'm sure it was an innocent mistake.

I'm trying to think of a Republican that has murdered someone and gotten away with it, and then spent his political career hammered constantly and working to overthrow the US government and replace it with a Soviet-style government.

So, in this imaginary world where you live, does everyone's voice sound like Rush? And do all the TV's carry only Faux news, 24-7?

Oh yeah, it must be Bush...George Bush murdered thousands.

Well, not directly, mind you... he just signed off on it; Cheney likely orchestrated most of it. And 'thousands' is being kind.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 27, 2009 11:43 AM

Ryan, you're still wrong, even if you've calmed down. Getting upset is understandable, and not even the problem, except insofar as getting upset tends to entrench a person in their wrong ideas.

@Walter: "Female that barks" is literally a female dog. Yeah, that didn't help, but I wasn't focused on someone taking that as a sexist remark. I have called men "bitch" as well, and it doesn't have to do with my interpretation of his gender. In fact, it has much more to do with his interpretation of his gender (insecurity), which is why I would use it as an insult to prod his insecurity.

In fact what you are saying here is that you deliberately use stereotypical gender roles to hurt other men. That right there is an extremely sexist action, and it does not comport with your claim to any kind of feminism from #251. It is no man's fault that he was born and raised in a culture that teaches such anxiety about masculinity.

However, I wasn't defending my use of the word. I was defending myself against some public censors around here who thought to tell me what I could and could not say based on very sloppy reasoning that amounted to dictatorial fiat.

Once again, this is false. No one told you what you could or couldn't say, and you predictably failed to provide any quotes demonstrating that they did. What we told you was simply the objective fact that your behavior was sexist: behavior that promotes stereotyping of social roles based on gender. That's all. No one ever censored you. As aratina cage said, no one here has the ability to censor you except PZ, and he hasn't said a word about it.

Look, folks - it's not sufficient to simply be upset. It's also not sufficient to state you are upset and never say why. I could have responded to the problem easily if someone had just asked whether I meant a simple word as a sexist remark

No, I made clear from the very beginning that I did not believe you meant it as a sexist remark. There was no need to ask, because I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you did not mean for it to be sexist. That's at least thirteen times now I've explained this. It is patently stupid for you to continually insist that I'm assuming anything but the best of intentions from you, in the face of so many explanations to the contrary.

(Even if you're A-A, by the way. The belief that only members of the A-A community can call each other "nigger" is a racist idea on its face.)

Oh, what hard work it is for white people not to use racial slurs against black people! How come they get to say it and I don't? Oh, we're so discriminated against! This is totally racist against us white people! And it's a completely unreasonable request! If I don't get to say racist things, then the terrorists win!

they just wanted me to stop using a word they didn't like and they couldn't provide a reason why not - other than some nebulous argument about "inherently sexist words" that I just don't get. "Fuck" isn't inherently offensive - it's just a description of sexual intercourse.

There's one of your mental blocks, again. Here's the fifth time it will be explained for you: the problem with calling a woman a bitch isn't that it's offensive. It doesn't matter if anyone takes offense. Indeed with the case of "fuck" the only conceivable reason not to use it is that someone in the vicinity will be offended. But calling a woman a bitch isn't like that. Regardless of whether anyone is offended, it is a behavior that promotes stereotyping of social roles based on gender. You might as well quit worrying about offense. It's a red herring and a dead end to understanding.

Problem is, no matter how many times I stated I was not sexist or misogynist, they tried saying that the use of a single word was itself "unintentionally" sexist in any case. How do I defend against that?

You might try actually engaging with the argument that was given, for starters. I offered an example of how kids can unintentionally spread homophobia. Four times now I've asked you to engage it. Instead of using logic, you've chosen to take a faith-based stance that it is not possible to accidentally make a comment that reinforces discrimination.

Again, for you to make your case that no one can participate in sexism without deliberate intent, you have to make the case that either:

1. we do not live in a culture which tends to discriminate against women, or

2. it is not possible to accidentally make a comment that reinforces discrimination.

You've chosen option 2, but you haven't made a single logical argument to support it. You're instead asserting it as a matter of principle, because you don't like the consequences of it possibly being false. That's a logical fallacy, appeal to consequences. And since you haven't even tried to argue it, it's as faith-based as saying that God must exist because the world would be scary if he doesn't.

You don't have an inside view into my internal biases at all;

Fourteen times illiterate.

I point out that your false dichotomy implies that acts cannot be unintentionally sexist and you tell me that I'm misinterpreting you.

No, I never said that acts cannot be unintentionally sexist. In fact I've said the opposite since my very first comment to you.

And then you present me with two options that must obviously be true, which is a tautology. I've already pointed out that an act or a word is, by itself, neutral and requires interpretation to be an insult or to be sexist, but then you try telling me that "bitch" is somehow an inherently sexist term because society says so.

Engage the argument, then, Ryan. Instead of complaining that I'm being unfair to you, just engage the argument. Go to the example of a kid calling another kid a fag without understanding what the word means. Can that behavior normalize homophobia? Can it? This is a simple yes or no question, and it would be far easier to engage it than to keep whining about how unfair I am.

You have claimed the power to censor my speech simply by defining it as unacceptable. I have no choice in the matter because you had the intent to consider my words offensive before I did. I can't possibly be "unintentionally" sexist because you have presumed the intent before I spoke, just by dint of one word. Either I know that some people consider "bitch" to be a sexist term, and when I use it I was "intentionally" sexist because I intentionally used the word, or you inform me that some people consider the word sexist and you remove my ability to be "unintentionally" sexist.

This is how censorship works. Someone considers a word to be offensive and removes the ability of people to be "unintentionally" offensive by saying "well, you knew before you used it or you didn't know. But now you do!"

This is gibberish. There is no content in the above two paragraphs, just hurt feelings. Again, sexism doesn't have to have anything to do with offense. Homophobia doesn't have to have anything to do with offense. The kid who's called a fag doesn't even need to fully understand what the word means for the act to normalize a homophobic culture.

I won't let you censor my words because you want to feel good about yourselves.

Again you dishonestly ignore my stated reason for interest in this discussion: I have friends and family who are women and so I have a legitimate interest in whether the culture they live in is tolerant of sexist behavior or not. How about you address me honestly instead of pretending that I have some stupid ulterior motive. Showing you how stupid you're acting doesn't make me feel good, it makes me feel bad about the stupidass culture that has encouraged you to act this way and think it's cool to say sexist things as long as you're doing to be "un-PC." Yeah, stick it to the man, Ryan!

My words have a meaning I give to them, not you.

'I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 27, 2009 12:00 PM

clinteas,

I think your comment was stupid, uncalled for, and undoubtedly sexist, in whichever context you look at it, and your backpedalling was at times painful to watch.

You were however also the victim of a debating tactic that I despise but that is unfortunately not uncommon here, and trust me we have been through this with various words at length over time, which is to claim authority over the "real" meaning of the words you use and the "true" intentions and convictions you have,

1. You are wrong about the inference of true intentions and convictions. As I've said repeatedly now, I have assumed the entire time that Ryan had no intent of being sexist.

2. Putting that aside, and speaking just of the meaning of words, your argument here appears to be self-contradictory. How can you possibly say that Ryan's comment was "undoubtedly sexist" without relying on the meaning of his words? He says his comment was not sexist. How can you disagree with him?

3. Since you agree that the comment was sexist, how would you suggest that this should have been made clear to him, or anyone else in the future? What alternative debating tactic would you use that would be more fair?

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 27, 2009 12:15 PM

SC, sgbm brought up the PC games being employed today as a means to justify that words do hurt[demeaning, sexist, racist etc]. I totally disagree. The PC games are used as a means for further control of the masses and is used as a forceful means in an attempt to control people and their thoughts. Will it succeed? Look about you, it already has...even some of you, Pharyngulites, now accept it as "gospel".

Yes, Walter, more than half this website is now under the influence of our mind control rays. We're also spreading chemtrails under the guise of high-altitude climate surveys.

What I like about non-arguments like yours is that they are so incredibly self-centered. There couldn't possibly be any reason not to say sexist or racist things, because no one in the world matters except for you. Only a Stalinist would asking you to maintain a basic level of decency toward other people. You've got to stand up to the man:

Now some of you will probably try twisting my words around to prove that I truly am evil because I don't agree with the PC games. Just to address that right now, I don't agree with the racist name calling and I have a problem with blacks calling each other nigger,when at the same time they are calling whitey on doing the same thing. Just a tad hypocritical, I'd say.

You put a racial slur in the mouths of unnamed black people who are presumably not here to defend themselves. Is that how you think of black people? They're all sitting around calling you whitey and cracker behind your back? If not, then why would you arbitrarily put a racial slur in the mouth of your black strawman?

And you have a white person's variant of the Christian's "jihad envy." Why complain that it's unfair that black people use a word among themselves that you don't get to use, unless you want to use it? There is nothing unfair here for you to complain about, unless you do in fact want to use that slur and you're feeling left out.

Maybe you should reevaluate why you want to say it so badly.

Posted by: pdferguson | August 27, 2009 12:30 PM

Domesticated Jackass wrote:

"Hypocrite" doesn't do it anymore. Not equal to the task. We need a new word for a new time, this foul hour of the Left; a word that combines hypocrisy, malice, audacity and contempt for all people.

We already have a word for that: Republican

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 27, 2009 12:44 PM

Damn, the water in here is still hot enough to make tea.

Posted by: JohnV | August 27, 2009 2:15 PM

@424

In Stalinist Russia, thread godwins you.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 27, 2009 2:58 PM

Excellent post, Prometheus... I feel much the same way but you stated it much more elegantly than I could have.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 27, 2009 3:38 PM

"In any case, two separate investigations (an inquest and a grand jury) declined to pursue criminal charges beyond the leaving the scene of an accident charge to which he pled guilty within a week of the incident (and for which he was sentenced to 2 months in jail, albeit suspended)."

Gee, I wonder why?

Whatever. I was just listening to an appreciation of Kennedy on the NPR show On Point (produced at WBUR in Boston). One of the guests recalled what someone (I can't remember who) once said when asked, WRT Kennedy, whether it was possible for a greatly flawed man to be considered a great man: "In my experience, that's the only sort of great man there is."

Ted Kennedy was a great man, with some great flaws. There will always be some who think the latter fact overwhelms the former; I will never be among them.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 27, 2009 4:00 PM

Am I in the right place?

No, this is Contradictions; Arguments is next door.

Posted by: Carlie | August 27, 2009 4:22 PM

Why is it not-OK to call some one a bitch, but it's ok to call them a douchebag, a uniquely feminine piece of equipment? or ok to call someone a moron or a retard when those are derogatory words for someone who is mentally handicapped?

As the Rev. said, if you search the blog for moron and retard you'll see that those get the same comments about their appropriateness. Douchebag is a more complex one. Some people avoid it for the reason you mention, others use it specifically because it is a piece of equipment that did no good and caused many infections, as well as directly implying that women's bodies were unclean in their natural state. Therefore they use it as an insult to imply that the person insulted is worthless, negative, and potentially harmful, because it was a patriarchal tool against women.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 27, 2009 4:26 PM

Feel free to come up with whatever ideas of me you want to have

Fifteen times.

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 27, 2009 4:33 PM

@sgbm: Fifteen times what? It's a dead horse - long dead. Leave it alone already, would you?

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 27, 2009 4:50 PM

@sgbm: Fifteen times what? It's a dead horse - long dead. Leave it alone already, would you?

That would be the number of times I've had to correct you now for claiming that I'm judging your character.

If it's a dead horse then you shouldn't have whipped it again at #438.

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 27, 2009 5:13 PM

strange gods before me #443:

That would be the number of times I've had to correct you now for claiming that I'm judging your character.

If it's a dead horse then you shouldn't have whipped it again at #438.

If you want to go on and on about something I did just so you can feel good about being right, then go right ahead. I'll even help you: you were right, I was wrong, I was an asshole who managed to hijack the comments section and turn it into a personal forum. Good enough?

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 27, 2009 5:26 PM

>If it's a dead horse then you shouldn't have whipped it again at #438.

Unless you think I am equating myself with Ted Kennedy

My bad. You whipped it at #436.

Posted by: Watchman | August 27, 2009 5:38 PM

I was living in Palm Beach County during the William Kennedy Smith episode and the subsequent trial

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | August 27, 2009 8:51 PM

I notice that Bob and Rev. Dr. D. Fuzz M.D. decided to decamp when it became obvious that nobody was particularly interested in debating with them.

Posted by: My Taser, Your Erection | August 28, 2009 9:52 AM

#420
@aratina cage

Effectively, yes, given Reaganomics, AIDS inaction, Iran-Contra, and the War on Drugs.

The hilarity in liberal logic never ceases to amaze.

For example, on "AIDS inaction", Reagan is being vilified for not stopping people from having irresponsible and unprotected sex...but at the same time, given his views on abortion, was vilified for actions that made people think twice about having irresponsible and unprotected sex.

Or for the war on drugs, Reagan was vilified for not supporting universal health care for the "poor".....but at the same time was being vilified for not allowing unlimited sale of street drugs to the same poor people.

Ted Kennedy on the other hand, in life and deed, supported promiscuity, irresponsible behavior, and drug use, but is never blamed for the effects of any of those things.

Posted by: My Taser, Your Erection | August 28, 2009 10:07 AM

And don't worry, liberals; your Black Kennedy has spoken and states that, when it comes to Ted Kennedy, Mary Jo Kopechne thought her death was "worth it".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-lafsky/the-footnote-speaks-what_b_270298.html

@aratina cage

I am sure you have high hopes for Michelle Bachmann then. Good luck with THAT.

Posted by: aratina cage | August 28, 2009 10:10 AM

The hilarity in liberal logic never ceases to amaze.

For example, on "AIDS inaction", Reagan the Teflon Man is being vilified for not stopping people from having irresponsible and unprotected sex...but at the same time, given his views on abortion, was vilified for actions that made people think twice about having irresponsible and unprotected sex.

Or for the war on drugs, Reagan was vilified for not supporting universal health care for the "poor".....but at the same time was being vilified for not allowing unlimited sale of street drugs to the same poor people.

Posted by: Prometheus | August 28, 2009 10:19 AM

Thank you Bill Dauphin at #446 that was both interesting and on topic. I had a friend who was a staffer during that time and her indication was that the corks came out at 10:00 A.M. and an enormous amount of time was always devoted to damage control from the evening before. As I said before, his personal and ideological behavior seemed incredibly incongruous.

The cost of Chappaquiddick had to have haunted him his whole life (people always fail to note Joan's third miscarriage within a day of his sentencing, it didn't just destroy the marriage Joan Kennedy is fairly apparently personally destroyed) and yet the wild sophomoric dubious sexual behavior at La Brasserie and strange reports from Cape cod went on for almost twenty years.

How do you both laud him as an example and present him as a cautionary tale. Perhaps this is is why all efforts to eulogize him sound a little flat to my tin ear.

Posted by: Rev. Dr. D. Fuzz M.D. | August 28, 2009 10:26 AM

Ref. aratina cage of #420

Reaganomics=
The belief that lower marginal taxes would increase gdp, sufficient to offset the intitial loss in tax cuts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

top marginal rate 71-81: 70%
top marginal rate 82-86: 50%
top marignal rate 87: 38.5%

Top marginal rate, under clinton: 39.6%.

Seriously, if reaganomics is dead, why haven't we gone back to 70% on the top bracket?

Take a look at marginal rates around the world...every modern country dropped their marginal rates, within three years after observing reagan's success.

I call it success, because unemployment fell from 10.8% to 7.4% in less than 16 months. Under this level of marginal rates we have run along for the past few decades at near peak employment. better employment, better gdp numbers. raise marginal rates, and accpet that you will have to divert more to pay for the healthcare and subsidy of the unemployed.

Want to kill reaganomics?

Prove the economists, especially on the left, who are advetising a jobless recovery, wrong...

Otherwise, accept national unemployment to run between 8-10% for the rest of your lives.

Another criticism of reaganomics was increased spending...
reagan actually only increased the size of govt by 14.9% in his first term. obama will increase it by more than 16% in his first year.

I love libs who float the word "reaganomics" with derision. an irony is that if they would accept the success of reaganomics, there was a noble group of dems who controlled the house and the senate, who agreed with the theory, and worked to support it. in trashing reagan, they trash their own party history...

So given the choice of throwing out the word, "reaganomics", to show their intellect and derision, versus actually exmaining the results and history, they gravitate towards the easy choice.

Geniuses.

Posted by: Rev. Dr. D. Fuzz M.D. | August 28, 2009 10:31 AM

#441

To discount all of the good things in favor of the bad things is just as dishonest as doing the opposite.

Ted Kennedy got drunk and threw a waitress on a table and dry-humped her with Chris Dodd, mocking the girl, to the delight(?) of those assembled. This occurred 20 years after Chappaquiddick...

If there was a moral bone in the guys body, he would have quit drinking and acknowledged his callousness after he killed a girl because of his drunkenness and callowness. Forgive my unwillingness to find mitigation to excuse this turd of a human being.

that strange idea that somehow Ronald Reagan had a more positive effect on the US than Kennedy

Why don't you just admit you know nothing about economics and let it go at that?

Posted by: Prometheus | August 28, 2009 10:39 AM

Oh good lord, this is deplorable:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g2yrKxEuWfjW8CnmQ7h-oSWgid1gD9ABODDG1

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 28, 2009 1:12 PM

Aratina:

Did you know that President Obama admires Reagan?

Just a point of clarification, because this was the source of some confusion and misunderstanding (some of it innocent and some of it willful) during the campaign: Obama recognized Reagan as a tranformational leader and admired Reagan's political acumen... but none of that implies (as Obama's opponents both within the Democratic party and in the general election tried to claim) that Obama subscribes to the general political philosophy that Reagan promoted, nor that he supports any substantial number of the specific policy proposals Reagan put forward. Obama could see, from an historical perspective, that Reagan changed the face of American politics, and thus of American society... that does not imply that Obama admires the nature of that change, nor that Obama is in any sense a Reaganist.

Prometheus:

I had a friend who was a staffer during that time and her indication was that the corks came out at 10:00 A.M. and an enormous amount of time was always devoted to damage control from the evening before.

Sure... it's simple human nature to do "damage control" in this sort of situation, both in terms of minimizing embarrassment to one's self and in terms of rallying to the defense of a family member (even if that family member is accused of a serious crime). You don't have to be a Kennedy to have those impulses (though admittedly, if you're a Kennedy you have more resources to apply to them).

But damage control ≠ coverup. Whatever damage control they tried to implement, it didn't prevent the incident from becoming public, nor from being investigated by law enforcement, nor from going to trial. And I personally didn't see any evidence that the Kennedy money and influence had any impact on WKS's ultimate acquittal: From the POV of a local observer, it seems that all the available facts came out and the correct verdict was reached. BTW, to clarify my earlier comments, I did not mean to suggest that drunkenness justifies rape. But rape is a crime that hinges on state of mind — did the alleged victim intend to consent or not? did she communicate her intent? should the alleged perpetrator have been able to understand her intent?, etc. — and the only two people in a position to have evidence regarding those questions were apparently so impaired that they couldn't give reliable testimony on the relevant points. Hence, it was inherently impossible to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the crime of rape had occurred.

But back to Teddy:

How do you both laud him as an example and present him as a cautionary tale.

I refer back to the comment I alluded to earlier: Can a greatly flawed man be considered a great man? In my experience, that's the only sort of great man there is.

History is riddled with undeniably great men and women whose personal habits — especially in the areas of intoxicants and sex — were less than admirable (and sometimes less than moral or legal). The great things they do on the world stage stand or fall on their own merit: I don't know that Teddy's great accomplishments wipe away his faults... but neither do his faults wipe away his accomplishments, and if you want to be quantitative about it, millions of lives have been made better, and possibly thousands of lives saved, at least in part due to his work on legislation that has benefitted workers and the cause of health care, just to name a small part of his legacy.

Oh, BTW, though the handful of tales of lives he personally impacted negatively are the most sensational, if you dig a little deeper, you'll find a huge number of tales of lives, within his circle of family, friends, and personal acquaintances, that he impacted positively. It's worth noting that all the people who knew him best, or worked for him, or worked with him, seem to have loved and respected him quite deeply indeed.

I think it's almost never true that the two or three most sensational events — good or bad — of a prominent person's life tell the true story of that person.

Posted by: Chiroptera | August 28, 2009 1:25 PM

The above comment by me was meant to be a reply to comment #452.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 29, 2009 6:10 PM

I know this thread is pret' near dead, and y'all have probably seen this anyway, but I wanted to give our president the last word on Senator Edward Moore Kennedy, Sr.:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/32608361#32608361

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 23, 2009 5:31 PM

classy

Posted by: bobscience | February 5, 2010 12:13 PM

It's like watching an obsessive crackhead.