And in this particular instance? You know, the very topic we're talking about?
Already answered it.
Or are you denying your "shut the fuck up" commentary? For all your talk about being an equal-opportunity offender, you squeal the loudest when it gets turned back on you.
Again I'll try to explain because you like to take one single statement completely out of context. You and anyone else, in my opinion, can shut the fuck up, cause I don't care that your feelings are hurt. That doesn't mean you or anyone else is going to, by all means talk, express yourself. But when I say "shut the fuck up" it's meant as a "who cares" what you have to say.
Go re-read our old gender/humor thread and you'll see many times that I say anyone can say whatever they want, it's their right. But I don't have to listen, for me, they could just as easily shut the fuck up.
Oh, I have my idea of who "they" are, but I don't know whom you are referring to by "they."
We're refering to the same people...
No, I don't. I know whom I am referring to when I say, "they." I have no idea whom you are referring to because despite my repeatedly asking you to be specific about who "they" are, you have avoided and evaded all attempts.
Same people...
Well, we've already had a cabbie stabbed in New York for being a Muslim.
What are the odds of a cabbie getting stabbed in NYC and he happens to be Muslim? Every fucking cabbie is Muslim in the city!
quote:That would depend of course on what we're talking about. On stage, I don't make a decision to exclude anyone. I attack everyone equally. On TV it would be up to the network to decide who they want to offend and who they don't.
-snip
No rules, just self-awareness that certain things when said will offend, I'd call that common sense. I equally offend everyone. For a TV network, that's their decision.
And how did you come to that conclusion? What was your ethical process by which you concluded that allowing one but not the other was "unfair"? Be specific.
My ethical processes? You're such as fag...
And your baiting attempts only prove the point I made a long time ago: You can't stop thinking about sex when you think about me.
That's just cause I've always wanted to ass rape Peter Pan. Currently, you're the closest thing to that. So how 'bout it? Can I slip into your never never land?
You weren't even talking to me when you decided to insert me into a conversation you were having with someone else.
Well, sir, any time I need to reference a complete and total fag, and/or douche, you'll be my representative. And since so many people here on EvC are so fond of you, they'll know exactly what I mean.
Re: Gay baiting, bad comedy, and/or something like that
24 hours for comedy attempts not up to professional standards.
Fair enough... I image that would be the first in EvC history?
Just to clarify, I wasn't gay baiting, and would never insult gay people by compairing Rrhain to them. He knows how we're using the terms, but he insists on connecting the use of the terms to homosexuality.
But I make no excuse for the lack of humor, even though I wasn't really trying to be funny. He really does act like a fag (and I use the term as defined by South Park, see here: South Park "The F Word")
quote:"The F Word" argues language is ever-changing and that taboo words only carry a stigma if society allows them to, and attempts to reclaim and disempower the word "fag".
The boys confess to the spray-painting, and explain to the city council that the word "fag" is not intended as an insult to homosexuals, and is more commonly used nowadays in reference to a contemptible person who rides a Harley motorcycle, or "an inconsiderate douchebag", as Stan puts it.
See, douchbags, and that's what I've always considered Rrhain to be: a complete and total douchbag - or, a Fag. I explained this to him in the Gender/Humor thread, and so did Mod, but he continues to connect the terms to homosexuality. So I decided to have some fun with it, and devised my campaign of exposing him for the melodramatic, douchbag that he is.
I promise to be funnier though. My bad.
- Oni
{Added by edit - Oni has just posted a seemingly related video at the humor topic - Adminnemooseus}
The moment your feelings get hurt, the moment there are any consequences to your behaviour, you're the one crying the loudest. You're nothing but a coward without the courage of your convictions.
Now, that isn't exactly true, is it? Shall we go back to the precise post where you made that comment?
Oh I know how YOU decided to read into it, cuz your a fag like that. But this isn't the thread for that. The thread where this is relevant is still open, waiting for you to fly back in and start your ad nauseum rhetoric.
You weren't saying Ms. Ossorio should "shut the fuck up" because you didn't care. It was precisely because you did care. It's precisely because her speaking, and that's all she had the power to do was speak, was having results you didn't like. You're all fine with "freedom of speech," but the moment you have to live with the results of your speech, you immediately scream "censorship."
Wrong thread douch nozzle...
Really? Who? You can give me the name of the specific group Comedy Central was referring to, yes?
The same one's you mentioned.
Enright specifically asked him if he were Muslim and when the cabbie said yes, proceeded to stab him.
You should move to NYC and become a Muslim cabbie.
On stage, I don't make a decision to exclude anyone. I attack everyone equally.
Why does "fair" mean everybody has to lose something?
Because it happens to "everybody." Unfair would be if it happened to only one single group continuously.
I'll remember that when you say, "shut the fuck up," what you really mean is to give it to you with both barrels.
The thread is still open, and there are unanswered posts, so bring your two barrels.
In other words, you don't know because you haven't done your homework. Just as I said.
No, you mentioned them in your post and I explained to you that we're talking about the same people.
Here's what you said:
Rrhain writes:
Comedy Central had no problem standing up to Christian groups who were not happy with that way South Park handled Christianity, but they suddenly turn into quivering lumps of Jell-O when faced with threats from some Muslims.
Those "some Muslims" that threatened Comedy Central, that YOU mention, are the people I'm talking about too.
Would you consider reciting antisemitic messages on Egyptian TV offensive?
Btw, this comes on the same Egyptian TV that has Egyptian Disney on another channel.
there is no good reason to hang up a sign of Muhammed or saying "NIGGER!".
There are many good reasons; to show someone an artist rendition, to hang it at a museum, etc. And someone could be saying a joke that involves the word nigger in it. It could be hilarious, even when done by a white person.
Would you deliberately do something hateful, spiteful and offensive to your Mother? Your best friend?
I do material all the time that my Catholic mother would find offensive, hateful in a broad sense, and certainly spiteful toward her religion. But, crowds laugh. So what do I do? Offend my mom or satisfy the crowd?
Oni's hilariously offensive schticks would count.
Ok. But I don't think my mom would agree with you.
In fact, she found Carlin highly offensive, and I used to have to sneak around to listen to him and Pryor as a kid.
Hang a big "NIGGER!" sign on your house. Post a large Nazi flag across the street from the Synagogue. Hang a cartoon caricature of Muhammad out your window.
...or, spout anti-Catholic remarks on stage. It's highly subject, AZ.
In my mothers eyes, my anti-Catholic jokes, Carlin's jokes, or a sign saying "nigger" are all the same thing. Offensive material.
It has to do with pure unadulterated hate.
But I do hate the Catholic church, and any church who would cover up child molestation. My mom however, still defends her church and her faith, regardless of the molestation charges.
This upsets me very much about her POV, but what can I do, she's set in her ways. But trust me, if I did, and I do, a joke about preist's molesting kids, she would find it highly offensive. Thus the reason neither her or my dad have ever watched me on stage. But I'll save that for my therapist, you get what I mean though.
So no, it doesn't answer the question. We have a very specific scenario that has nothing to do with your profession. It would be nice if you would stop avoiding the question and answer it.
If it doesn't have anything to do with me or what I do, then how can I be asked how I determine who goes away unhappy? In ANY other situation other than what I can control, (1) I don't care, it's off topic and irrelevant, but (2) I don't determine things for other situations.
Where the mosque is concerned, again, I don't care, build one on every corner. I would rather see a secular youth center, or maybe a library, but other than minor quibbles like that, I don't care what happens. How can I answer your question of who goes away unhappy in reference to the mosque? It's not my decision. If they have the money to buy land and build it, then enjoy.
Your question makes no sense.
So? Why does something that happens to everybody mean that everybody has to lose something?
It doesn't.
Why can't the "fair" thing be that we follow what is right rather than try to maintain some sort of faux "equality"?
Sure, why not? I don't know what this has to do with what I've said. In the case with Comedy Central, and ONLY in this specific case, someone got shit on, namely, Christians. Muslims were considered before showing the image, and, they decided not to show the image in that one particular episode that DID show Jesus shitting on Bush and the flag.
That is not fair. In that case, and in this specific case only, the right thing to do IMO was to show both, or shown none.
Huh? That makes no sense. We're not talking about who is getting the potshots thrown at them. We're talking about how we handle the response when potshots are thrown. Group A wants to construct something that Group B doesn't particularly like.
Dude, pick a fucking subject and stick to it. I thought you were going on about Comedy Central, now this question seems to be in reference to the mosque.
Who am I talking about, onifre? If you know who I'm talking about, you can give me the name.
Na, I'm satisfied saying we're talking about the same people. If this isn't good enough for you then you know quite well that I don't give a fuck.
When I say, "some Muslims," I have a specific group of people in mind by name.
Me too, and it's the same as you. The same as it is to anyone who wants to google it.
They pretty much haven't changed from the OP. I believe muslims are well within their right to build a mosque where ever they see fit to. Religious freedom protected by the Constitution gives them this right. I don't consider "Ground Zero" to be any kind of sacred ground - (actually, I really don't consider ANY piece of property on Earth sacred) - and doing so puts more people at risk then just ignoring the mosque and getting on with our lives.
The current state of Jerusalem is a perfect example of a piece of real estate being taken too seriously -- when supposed "holy grounds" have to be protected by men and women with machine guns. I don't think any sensible person in the US would like to see that for Ground Zero or the Freedom Tower.
As for those Christians who claim that Ground Zero is off limits to "others," I'll leave this quote:
source
quote:After all, there is scarcely a square foot of land upon which we tread that is not, for someone, Ground Zero. I am sitting atop one now: a killing field for Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw and Creek; a graveyard in which are buried the bones -- and if no longer the bones, then surely the dust -- of peoples whose evisceration occurred not so long ago, and is still remembered by those who have not the luxury of forgetting.
And so the New Yorkers who believe against all evidence that their trauma is unique in the history of the world -- or even their city for that matter -- prattle on about the "defiling" of the former World Trade Center location. Meanwhile they overlook that their precious island was itself cajoled from indigenous peoples for a handful of worthless beads. And white men have been swindling those we viewed as inferior -- be they of color, or even other white men -- ever since, especially (and this is where the geographic symbolism of their protests becomes revealing) in and around Wall Street, where the actions of wealthy investors and financiers have done far more damage than Osama Bin Laden ever could. Would that we might prohibit the construction of banks anywhere in New York so as to make a point about terrorism and our unwillingness to collaborate with it.
Indeed, if those protesting the Cordoba House were the least bit interested in consistency -- as opposed to being content to wallow in a type of hypocrisy both profound and typical -- they would, to a person, vacate downtown Manhattan immediately. And this they would do out of respect for the lives destroyed by people such as they: black peoples forced to build Fort Amsterdam for the Dutch, which is where Battery Park is now, or the walls that gave the famous street its name, or the roads, or the very auction blocks upon which their compatriots would be sold, thereby allowing 40 percent of white New York households to possess other human beings as property by the mid-1700s.
And they would vacate midtown too, especially any with Irish ancestry, since it was their ancestral fathers who - and so as to show how badly they desired to become white - burned down a black orphanage on 5th Avenue between 43rd and 44th during the 1863 Draft Riots. But I'm guessing there is an Irish Pub within walking distance of the former orphanage, and yet no one seems particularly concerned about the slight.
Someone in this thread said building this mosque would be like building a statue of Hitler at Auschwitz, but why go so far? Why not it being like building a stadium on land that once belonged to Indians with the name "Redskins" on it? Because, that would mean recognizing our lack of sensitivity for those this nation has hurt, slaughtered and eradicated.
As always, Americans are quick to point and criticize others for their behavior, ignoring, as always, those of this country.
9/11 was a tragedy, this goes without saying. But what this country has done to other nations, especially those in the middle east, especially in support of the tyranical government of Israel, especially when they've supported the uprising of many dictators, must be recognized and taken into account anytime anyone here decides to point the finger at a group of people all call them terrorist.
What are the odds of a cabbie getting stabbed in NYC and he happens to be Muslim? Every fucking cabbie is Muslim in the city!
My ethical processes? You're such as fag...
™ Version 4.2
(1)