« Seeing Oil Spots | Main | A long-overdue recommendation »

September 01, 2005

Comments

What, Catsy? Unwarranted?

Actually, rilkefan, I did Google it when I first saw Thomas using it, as I suspected it would be seized upon by dishonest, shrieking types -- felixrayman, QED -- as evidence of his racism. Being from the South myself, I'd heard it before in the context of (white) children. Between that, the preponderance of usage as revealed by Google, and my knowledge of Thomas as a person, I am more than satisfied that the man is not even slightly racist, and that his use of the phrase in question had no intended racial tinge.

That being said, I am also more than satisfied that the likes of felix lack the fundamental graciousness of character necessary to credit an ideological opponent with any positive quality. It's what being a prisoner of petty hatred does to a person.

That being said, I am also more than satisfied that the likes of felix lack the fundamental graciousness of character necessary to credit an ideological opponent with any positive quality. It's what being a prisoner of petty hatred does to a person.

It's funny how being labelled subhuman makes some people feel uncharitable. Folks are strange that way.

But thanks for the tip that Thomas meant his racist epithet in a non-racist way.

Here's a tip for him from me: next time, write in a way that doesn't require the reader to personally know you to understand the context of your words.

More than it was yesterday? (Click on "Oh, and this whole thing is the fault of homosexuals.")

Yes, because of who's saying it and how it's promulgating. I wouldn't have bothered to mention the fact that some religious types are saying that God was punishing New Orleans (or any variation on that theme) otherwise.

More than it was yesterday? [...]

Yes, because of who's saying it and how it's promulgating.

Oh, sorry, wrong URL:
(AgapePress) - Two Christian leaders in New Orleans are testifying to God's mercy in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. One suggests that the death toll could have been much higher had it not been for God's mercy -- and the other....
Not important, of course. (I'm not disgruntled about this; I'm disgruntled that after all the work I put in, I got links from about two blogs, Tim Burke and Fafblog, and little else, while I keep reading about what great comprehensive coverage a couple of yet other blogs are doing, and that starts to make one -- or me, anyway -- wonder why I'm bothering.) Although three or four people have offered thanks, so that's good. Anyway, don't mind me.

Being from the South myself, I'd heard it before in the context of (white) children. Between that, the preponderance of usage as revealed by Google, and my knowledge of Thomas as a person, I am more than satisfied that the man is not even slightly racist

Jeebus. So one Southern white guy attests that another Southern white guy's use of a malign racial term does not indicate that the man is in any way a racist, and that's sufficient to settle the matter. By that standard, Thurmond's out, Helms is out, and a young Lott is out. In fact, I'm pretty sure there's never been a racist Southern white guy in history.

Did you at least look deep into his heart, see his soul, and see that he was a good man?

Clap harder, Tacitus.

I had forgotten all about Ramona Quimby's "Yard Ape", but Google is a fine memory aid. As for the use of the term by Thomas, surely "gibbering" renders it pejorative, and we must also consider it in context as it is a link. Does it refer to a "small kid" in context? I don't know any small kids who throw human corpses, but perhaps I have led a sheltered existence?

I find it perfectly plausible that Thomas doesn't understand the implications of the words he uses. He's convinced it's not pejorative to call a child a "bastard", after all.

I'd normally plead for comity here, but since I just spent the afternoon yelling "The ref beats his wife!",* well, carry on.

* Welcome to Big Ten football, baby.

My condolences, Anarch. I hate it when the Big Ten gets beat up on by the MAC, even if the MAC gets crushed in the end.

OTOH I love it when Auburn gets beat by GA Tech.

I hate it when the Big Ten gets beat up on by the MAC, even if the MAC gets crushed in the end.

We won. In the end, that's all that really matters.

OTOH I love it when Auburn gets beat by GA Tech.

And how 'bout them Horned Frogs, huh?

If this thread ever turns to comparative victimization - and which thread doesn't? - spare a thought for fans of Duke, which lost to a I-A team (East Carolina) that's gone 3-20 over the past two years.

Sigh.

If it comes to that, spare a thought for the Princeton football team, which, when I was there, was the worst team ever.

Growing up, I went to Harvard football games a lot, and they were lots of fun: plucky not-so-good players trying to win on brains and zaniness alone. I used to think: this is more fun than watching e.g. the NFL, where the games might as well be played by machines; with Harvard, you truly never know what's going to happen next, so it's more fun.

But then I went to Princeton, and discovered that there are limits to how bad a team can be before it stops being fun at all. I remember sitting at one game -- one of the maybe two I went to before giving up altogether -- and thinking: all these novel concepts that I would have preferred not to know about, and do not want to observe. For instance, I was familiar with the forward and lateral passes, but not the backward pass! And I knew that you could go over or around a line, but not straight through it!

If it comes to that, spare a thought for the Princeton football team, which, when I was there, was the worst team ever.

Those were the good ol' days...

...but our basketball team wasn't so bad now, was it? ;)

If we're going to start claiming victimhood for having gone to a college with bad football teams, please make way.

Vanderbilt.

I also oneself something would want to find out on this theme. Very attentively I will read every post.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad