Letters to the Editor
-
Why should they do anything?
All we need to worry about is naughty words and anything that smacks of racism or woman-hating. C'mon bikehelmets, get your priorities straight.
-
thanks wonder woman for the full text
she was the first rapper. but i don't think her work was "butchered" - anonymous(white woman) just gave the rhythm. like humming the first notes of beethoven's fifth. you take the lines, "Can you kill the nigger in you| Can you make your nigger mind die| Can you kill your nigger mind" and say it's really the "Greater Jihad" not the "Lesser Jihad" but i don't see it. you *can* make the case, but to me, it wasn't clear whether she was saying kill the oppressors, the oppressor's thoughts or the imposed oppressors thoughts. it just wasn't. the music's still good. she's complicated. she's biracial, but you wouldn't know it from her poems (that giovanni came from a *real* italian father). here are some wiki and other scattered history that shows how conflicted she is. She has a tattoo with the words "Thug life" to honor Tupac Shakur, whom she admired. Her book Love Poems (1997) was written in memory of him, and she has stated that she would "rather be with the thugs than the people who are complaining about them." "I had a baby at twenty-five because I wanted to have a baby and I could afford to have a baby," she told an Ebony interviewer. "I did not get married because I didn't want to get married and I could afford not to get married." In 1995 Giovanni was diagnosed with lung cancer. She had surgery at Jewish Hospital in Cincinnati. She is living healthy today. finally, i reacted to (naturally) one specific line. and i wrote a glossary in her style "cracker poor| white trash| down south he| only higher than nigger| honkie up north| don't see niggers| if sees he fights| jew special| no terms endearing| jew too old for that| jew for ever|"
-
That's besides the point
We're all liberals here. Jewhating while somewhat obnoxious is nothing more than the empowerment of downtrodden people. Keep de spear burnin mon.
No if you want to precrime everyone then fine, let's lock up people for what they might do. Like sex criminals. In fact anyone who draws outside the lines should be put in mental hospitals like they used to do in the Soviet Union. I bet I could get a quarter of you to agree to that outright.
-
it's not "besides the point" - i's my *poem*
as for your inconsidered notion, RealName, what would you consider conspiracy? free speech? what about *attempted* murder? (the gun misfired) no offense, no penalty? lesser crimes. is stalking a crime? is scaring a crime? is watching a crime? in the other direction, is targeting and preparation for assassination a crime? in mosaic law, free will is paramount, there's no penalty for *ordering* a death. in roman law, there's no penalty for *carrying out* an assassination. in american law there's both. then there's penalties. money is considered least - but that's because the rich, who make the laws, can pay. for the poor, money is often life. penalties are for two purposes, to dissuade, like insider trading (to leave money on the table seems crazy to most people - it's *normal* to try and benefit by knowledge) and on the other side, to punish, something most people *wouldn't* do, like arson. if you "can't help yourself" does that mean commitment and if you could (determined by jury), incarceration? law is not given from on high (folk's beliefs notwithstanding) it's to avoid fights, feuds, civil wars. an *agreement* that's taken as "fair" by most influential parties.
-
and while i'm at it, RealName
where did that crude, sneering, tin-eared, anti-jamaican feeling come in? "Keep de spear burnin mon." and where did *this* come from? "Jewhating while somewhat obnoxious is nothing more than the empowerment of downtrodden people." - fuck them, and fuck you, it's NOT all right. not to me. that's my family, not "all of mankind". that's who i fight for.
-
Problem is...
>It might have. Lots of resentful young men from puritanical backgrounds aren't really committed to the puritanical belief systems they inherit enough that they won't give them up if they start being able to live a successful alternative.<
But Cho was stalking women and regarding them in madonna/whore terms. He couldn't see them as real people or engage them as such--and was hostile to them. That's as good a working definition of misogyny as it gets, and guys operating from that mode can only see sex as a power play, a domination/submission game...not as fun or tender or relaxing.
-
nice choice of words, deering
"fun or tender or relaxing". yes folks, that's what's normal. "power play, a domination/submission" is what's the problem.
-
it's not an either or thing deering and in fact your misconception has wide implications in regard to the lack of understanding of
the fundamental differences between males and females, and how that reality might rationally be dealt with. For obvious reasons which I'm not going to bother spelling out for the millionth time men don't lose positive interest and (potentially) positive response to women even when they have serious problems with them whereas when women really don't like men they really just don't like them.
-
spell it out for the million and first, Anonymous
i looked at you last post and from what i gather is, if cho had only had gotten laid, this never would have happened. there are more serial rapist killers than mass murderers, did *they* achieve satori? you say, "The most universally dedicated and universally successful group of partiers I ever knew in college were the Saudis because they ALL had lots of money, and every single one of them was able under those circumstances to "transcend" their puritanical backgrounds." the saudis have are the ideal examplar of the "madonna/whore" misogynistic psychology that deering addresses. that for money, some women would adopt a submissive role(in deerings words) means a breakthrough is saudi psychology? and when those "partiers" go home, do you think they'd treat their wives any differently. now, don't get me wrong, i think getting laid - and laid a lot, is good (for your ego, mental health, general outlook) but it doesn't cure schizophrenic psychopathy.
-
because men invest so little biologically in a specific attempt at reproduction and women so much
they have different insttincts regarding it. Women are selective and require good conditions, or as good as possible, and if they can't get them they wait whereas men are willing to fight and put up with crap and still regard an attempt at reproduction as worth doing, so men can have serious problems with women and still regard them as worth "doing" (and by doing I mean have potentially a geniuinely positive emotionl reaction), but women, once they decide that "conditions"(i.e men at least as currently constituted) are bad don't have that potential (at least until things change). The assumption women make that men are like them in this regard creates a lot of difficulties in comprehending reality.