Like his History? I like it.
His Ideas? Like'em.
This Fucking Person? What's not to like?
And when he teams up with molls, that's just....well, that's pretty effing likable. (and offensive).
Look at this fucking person living in the United States.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
re: Chuck
I like everything by Chuck.
Like his History? I like it.
His Ideas? Like'em.
This Fucking Person? What's not to like?
And when he teams up with molls, that's just....well, that's pretty effing likable. (and offensive).
Look at this fucking person living in the United States.
Like his History? I like it.
His Ideas? Like'em.
This Fucking Person? What's not to like?
And when he teams up with molls, that's just....well, that's pretty effing likable. (and offensive).
Look at this fucking person living in the United States.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
re: social media
I won't really understand this until I can afford a smart phone. We talk of the technological revolution, but the gap is still there for access, even spoiled brats like me.
Twitter is not really useful to anyone not connected as long as they are ...awake. And while I'm often on the INTERNET, I'm also at the movies, the park, the coffee shop etc. and my phone can barely text.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
re: do you use the "C-word"?
Do you use the "C-word"?
No. I say cunt.
As some have pointed out, "cunt" is a pretty common slang term for a guy in areas like Scotland and England - occupying an area somewhere between "dude" and "fuckface." But European ubiquity is not an excuse for use - there or here. Cunt it is still one of the last offensive words in North American culture. Or, rather, it's one of the last words that both men or women would say is offensive. Because women don't get to decide.
Now here is the tricky part so forgive me if this is vague; it sounds like I think these instances are the same. They are not. The reason it is okay to say "dick" and make "boys are smelly" Venn diagrams and not for women is that the structural and historical context is just not comparable - in almost any society.
And, technically, one could say it's equivalent to saying "dick". But, of course, it isn't. Is this because of the view of the female sex (organ)? It is more dirty and taboo? Maybe, but really I think it's because using "dick" as derogatory is allowed due to the historical relationship of women and power. Like, give them the "dick" thing and they'll shut up.
So, are these double standards empowering or just fighting prejudice with ignorance? I mean, stereotypes are going to be "solved" with more stereotypes. If this was about women, would it be okay?
I will never be one to call for a ban on words. I hate c--- or c*** etc. Words of any kind have their place - offensive or otherwise - in dialogue. To be afraid to even use the word to discuss it's use is damaging to open and effective dialogue.
At the end of the day, it's not about the word. The word has been infused with meaning, but it doesn't have negative connotations in and of itself. Men use "dick" as derogatory. So, maybe it's the idea of summing up a person as one piece of flesh. And that is hurtful no matter your sex/gender/self perception.
Let's gather our patience, our intelligence, our compassion and our courage and try to understand how to be sensitive and direct at the same time. Do not say C word. Use the word cunt. Write it out. A woman's sex is not dirty or sacred. But don't call a woman a cunt. Don't define her by her biology. And to evolve as people, let's apply all those things to how we treat all sexes/genders/self perceptions.
No. I say cunt.
As some have pointed out, "cunt" is a pretty common slang term for a guy in areas like Scotland and England - occupying an area somewhere between "dude" and "fuckface." But European ubiquity is not an excuse for use - there or here. Cunt it is still one of the last offensive words in North American culture. Or, rather, it's one of the last words that both men or women would say is offensive. Because women don't get to decide.
Now here is the tricky part so forgive me if this is vague; it sounds like I think these instances are the same. They are not. The reason it is okay to say "dick" and make "boys are smelly" Venn diagrams and not for women is that the structural and historical context is just not comparable - in almost any society.
And, technically, one could say it's equivalent to saying "dick". But, of course, it isn't. Is this because of the view of the female sex (organ)? It is more dirty and taboo? Maybe, but really I think it's because using "dick" as derogatory is allowed due to the historical relationship of women and power. Like, give them the "dick" thing and they'll shut up.
So, are these double standards empowering or just fighting prejudice with ignorance? I mean, stereotypes are going to be "solved" with more stereotypes. If this was about women, would it be okay?
I will never be one to call for a ban on words. I hate c--- or c*** etc. Words of any kind have their place - offensive or otherwise - in dialogue. To be afraid to even use the word to discuss it's use is damaging to open and effective dialogue.
At the end of the day, it's not about the word. The word has been infused with meaning, but it doesn't have negative connotations in and of itself. Men use "dick" as derogatory. So, maybe it's the idea of summing up a person as one piece of flesh. And that is hurtful no matter your sex/gender/self perception.
Let's gather our patience, our intelligence, our compassion and our courage and try to understand how to be sensitive and direct at the same time. Do not say C word. Use the word cunt. Write it out. A woman's sex is not dirty or sacred. But don't call a woman a cunt. Don't define her by her biology. And to evolve as people, let's apply all those things to how we treat all sexes/genders/self perceptions.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
re: the reading rainbow
Thursday, August 13, 2009
re: high noon at the town hall
UPDATE: There are things going on here too people (here is Vancouver, B.C). Health care guys! Woooo!
Love it. "End of death counseling" PEOPLE. PEOPLE DIE. IT HAPPENS.
Just watched a clip from Colbert Report his insurance program for the show has it included. Betcha most of the ppl who have insurance and are yelling "death panel" have it.
So these "death panels" are only killing grandma by ACTUALLY GIVING HER DECENT INSURANCE.
*pant pant*
Another tidbit:
I read that the percentage of those who agree with "Obama's" plan goes up almost 30% if they read a paragraph stating what is in the plan than if they go on what they "know" already.
I theorize that many people seen at these town hall meetings aren't (for the most part) ignorant and angry but are of an era where one was "safe" to "believe" their news. Not just information, ideas were what you could find at 6 o'clock and again at 9. Many anchors during the Cronkite era gave editorial views - well-researched, thoughtful and thought-provoking editorial views - that were worth believing. This was the intent of news journalism, or at least of the "personalities" like Cronkite: the evening anchor is the editor, the summation.
So transpose this mentality to the 24 hour news/infotainment/corporate news era (I won't pick on Fox News because MSNBC is just as biased). The assumption of credibility remains while the proof is flimsy. Inflammatory statements disguised as questions, pure opinion disguised as researched editorial, editorial disguised as reporting. I am not surprised people are scared.
While the Cronkite/anchor oriented era mindset had flaws, it was based on critical thinking and reporting; however, while this type of news can breed critical thinking, it can also create a trust trap which places the news anchor as having the final (or at least most important) word. If I trusted what Bill O' said like I trusted Cronkite, I'd be yelling at my senator too.
Love it. "End of death counseling" PEOPLE. PEOPLE DIE. IT HAPPENS.
Just watched a clip from Colbert Report his insurance program for the show has it included. Betcha most of the ppl who have insurance and are yelling "death panel" have it.
So these "death panels" are only killing grandma by ACTUALLY GIVING HER DECENT INSURANCE.
*pant pant*
Another tidbit:
I read that the percentage of those who agree with "Obama's" plan goes up almost 30% if they read a paragraph stating what is in the plan than if they go on what they "know" already.
I theorize that many people seen at these town hall meetings aren't (for the most part) ignorant and angry but are of an era where one was "safe" to "believe" their news. Not just information, ideas were what you could find at 6 o'clock and again at 9. Many anchors during the Cronkite era gave editorial views - well-researched, thoughtful and thought-provoking editorial views - that were worth believing. This was the intent of news journalism, or at least of the "personalities" like Cronkite: the evening anchor is the editor, the summation.
So transpose this mentality to the 24 hour news/infotainment/corporate news era (I won't pick on Fox News because MSNBC is just as biased). The assumption of credibility remains while the proof is flimsy. Inflammatory statements disguised as questions, pure opinion disguised as researched editorial, editorial disguised as reporting. I am not surprised people are scared.
While the Cronkite/anchor oriented era mindset had flaws, it was based on critical thinking and reporting; however, while this type of news can breed critical thinking, it can also create a trust trap which places the news anchor as having the final (or at least most important) word. If I trusted what Bill O' said like I trusted Cronkite, I'd be yelling at my senator too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
