ilovefuzz.com

Are you guys rap Bataille-ing?

Faldoe wrote:

gnomethrone wrote:I just thought his cultural references were lame. Its cool that you have logic and reason to believe in and you are totally entitled to your opinions


but Bill O'Reilly is trash.

"The first problem of the media is posed by what does not get translated, or even published in the dominant political languages."
Jacques Derrida

Does that mean you know with certainly anything he ever says, any point he ever makes or question he asks will surely be bullshit or "trash?"

Is the Derrida quote mean't to be used a certain dismiss more "dominant" or mainstream forms of media distribution and assert they are always problematic?

I know the words being used are English but the how they are arranged...

gnomethrone wrote:Are you guys rap Bataille-ing?

Wooooooooooooooooh!!!

DON'T BELIEVE THE DOMINANT CONSTRUCT OF TRUTH!

Many people are saying that the Chinese are gonna try the old pee pee trick:

gnomethrone wrote:
Look at this fucking SJW. He' such an SJW he wrote a book on being an SJW. Dude is dressed like he's about drop the most obscure vaporwave cassette of the week.

Everybody thinks they're being logical, or at least selling a logical product. Not trying to be a dick or change your opinion, I just see Bill and some angry tumblr teen as two sides of the same cultural phenomenon, I guess? I dunno. Just look at that fucking creep. That dude dragged his ex-wife down a staircase by her throat and people look to him as some sort of pillar of morality. It's downright illogical.

Whats that saying about books and judging them by their covers? Yeah, obviously he is a man/person of the media and a guy selling his shit and certainly isn't without many douchebag moments but I'm saying are you willing to write him off completely with such certainly that you know he can't say anything of substance?

To do so I think is an error in reason.

Thats part of the problem.

I'm asking and wondering if people can truly have the energy and the openness in mind to listen to someone and recognize where the person their are listening to makes a logical point, or doesn't or even more difficult - may make a logical point in the midst of illogical ones, or make an illogical point in the midst of logical points.

This goes for the SJW crowd as well. There are those that think anything people in the SJ causes is total bullshit. I don't agree with that. While I think a lot of the SJ stuff isn't as thought out and self critical and reflective as it could be, there are still valid points in there and it's important to be able to see that.

If people in this country - the US - can't look into the nuance and listen, try and find common ground we are truly doomed.

And there are those people - nihilist or otherwise - that don't give a shit and will say "good, thats great, this country needs to go down, I'd love to see it come down, yada yada."

Chankgeez wrote:Many people are saying that the Chinese are gonna try the old pee pee trick:

Being he's American
and he's so smart
he probably wont drink the yellow part

SOMETHING SOMETHING PEE-PLAY PUNCHLINE

Faldoe wrote:are you willing to write him off completely with such certainly that you know he can't say anything of substance?

He's the host of a nightly entertainment program, why would I be interested in his opinions? Might as well watch Jimmy Fallon hoping to gain some insight. I don't have cable at home so it's not that I'm picking one 24 hours news channel and demonizing the others, I just don't see a need when the internet exists and I can read the news myself. Believe it or not, I've actually watched his show a lot because I like spending time with my geriatric relatives and they enjoy his show's simple narrative structure. I do like when Charles Krauthammer is on, whcih speaks to your point I guess. I may not agree but he makes me think and definitely brings substance and depth to O'Reilly's smug smirk-fest. The other bit that's fun is the guy that goes out and does street interviews to show what dum-dums those wacky progressives are. I can appreciate the humor of people saying ignorant shit on TV, it's a pretty classic formula. I think Leno used to do the same bit right? Anyway I'm really not arguing with you, I'm just tired of the term SJW. It's a generalization that undermines lots of people. As for people eagerly awaiting the fall of our country, again it's something you hear from all sides of the spectrum. Evangelicals desperately awaiting the end times to be saved from this wicked government that taxes them and spends the money on teaching their kids science, doomsday preppers eager for the day the shit hits the fan so they can shoot whoever tries to eat their MREs, etc etc.

gnomethrone wrote:The other bit that's fun is the guy that goes out and does street interviews to show what dum-dums those wacky progressives are.

I find most of the stuff that Watter's does comical (except the rapey shit), though he's not really funny like Greg Gutfeld or Andy Levy.
I always wondered why "liberals"/left-leaning individuals take conservative based humor so personally, though.
Virtually all late-night comedy is done at the expense of conservatives, but make one conservative aimed comedy bit and the whole left goes ape shit.

gnomethrone wrote:Are you guys rap Bataille-ing?

Fo Saussure.

Faldoe wrote:

gnomethrone wrote:
Look at this fucking SJW. He' such an SJW he wrote a book on being an SJW. Dude is dressed like he's about drop the most obscure vaporwave cassette of the week.

Everybody thinks they're being logical, or at least selling a logical product. Not trying to be a dick or change your opinion, I just see Bill and some angry tumblr teen as two sides of the same cultural phenomenon, I guess? I dunno. Just look at that fucking creep. That dude dragged his ex-wife down a staircase by her throat and people look to him as some sort of pillar of morality. It's downright illogical.

Whats that saying about books and judging them by their covers? Yeah, obviously he is a man/person of the media and a guy selling his shit and certainly isn't without many douchebag moments but I'm saying are you willing to write him off completely with such certainly that you know he can't say anything of substance?

To do so I think is an error in reason.

Thats part of the problem.

I'm asking and wondering if people can truly have the energy and the openness in mind to listen to someone and recognize where the person their are listening to makes a logical point, or doesn't or even more difficult - may make a logical point in the midst of illogical ones, or make an illogical point in the midst of logical points.

This goes for the SJW crowd as well. There are those that think anything people in the SJ causes is total bullshit. I don't agree with that. While I think a lot of the SJ stuff isn't as thought out and self critical and reflective as it could be, there are still valid points in there and it's important to be able to see that.

If people in this country - the US - can't look into the nuance and listen, try and find common ground we are truly doomed.

And there are those people - nihilist or otherwise - that don't give a shit and will say "good, thats great, this country needs to go down, I'd love to see it come down, yada yada."

In this case O'Reilly's valid points are of the garden variety, broken clock phenomenon, and that's by design -- he's more reprehensible, IMO, because he's a smart guy who knowingly peddles shouty nonsense to people with a disinclination towards "science" and "the world outside their doorstep".

There are plenty of extraordinarily conservative thinkers (you can look at what Christopher Hitchens wrote about the Middle East, for example). I do not think O'Reilly qualifies.

Faldoe wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:

rustywire wrote:Also implying "white" and "non-white" are classes

Breaking: they are. And, under this spectrum, Carlton would totally be a "white person"... He stopped eating pork, he stopped eating greens, he traded in his dashiki for some Jordache jeans, etc.

Are you white or a non-person of color? There seems to be this trend that has been happening for some time in which both people of color and non-POF will "de-black" or remove any person of color from their respective race if said person doesn't have the "right" ideological beliefs or if they don't have a familial or financial background that the critical group deems agreeable. This happened when young black students on college campuses were critical of BLM. The response from BLM students at the respective colleges was to call their fellow critical black students "House n*****s" and the like or not really black simply for disagreeing with BLM.

White "allies" sympathetic to the BLM and social justice craze also seem to help do this dirty work by trying to deprive a person of color of their racial identity of background by trying to sell certain aspects of their life or experience precluded them from their race cause they don't share some common theme with the rest of the group.

Also your characterization of Carlton and a kind of list of attributes of what constitutes "black" via class is in itself a racist of prejudicial categorization. This kind of "boxing in" the current left is engaging in only further marginalizes and limits black people by saying in order to truly be black you not only have to have the obvious aspect which is skin color/genetic origins that constitute "to be black" but that you also must have a certain economic and ideological view to be black.

Are all successful black people not black because of their economic status?

You're moving the goalposts a little bit here, aren't you? Insofar as you're taking a construct most people take as a given in humor (I present Chappelle's 'racial draft' and so on) but I'm not sure you can so easily dismiss the idea that the dominant social construct for the mainstream U.S. is definitely tailored towards the (predominantly white) type-A aesthetic. It's why the NBA has a dress code and so forth -- or, to bastardize and steal a bit from Yahdon Israel, "there's no room for personal freedom in a social construct."

[aside: For what it's worth this also defined the prevailing attitudes towards tattoos, "immoral/deviant" sexual behavior, so on so forth. There's a reason, in other words, why "dress for success" brings up a particular image in the collective mind's eye (let's not kid ourselves, that person is straight out of the Mitt Romney catalog); and that image isn't something that is associated with poor people, who more often than not in the U.S. are 'non-white' because of reasons outlined briefly below. We can pick nits over whether that's a "real" class system or not, I guess.]

This happens everywhere, but again, the U.S. is a country that spent the first third of it's existence with an explicit class system based on race and is still addressing the fallout of that today -- the Civil Rights act is just barely 53 years old: that's barely two generations back, if you figure the median age here is about 38. People bitch about things like diversity criteria because they like to believe we're beyond that as a country, but the fact that it was deemed as necessary to introduce would perhaps speak otherwise.

So I hope that explains the Carlton phenomenon a bit. At least as much as as any of this applies to a fictional character brought up to make something of an exaggerated point.

In other news what the fuck is going on:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/ ... -contacts/

Steve Bannon creaming his freshly pressed khakis

Yeah my brother-in-law asked for a copy of 1984 back in November; I told him to wait and see if reading it was gonna be necessary.

So far: nah, headlines are fine.

Yeah if anyone still needed convincing that A Brave New World was a preferable alternative, I present to you 2017, by George Orwell.