[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Modern Anthropology and its Political Agendas

Subject: Re: Modern Anthropology and its Political Agendas
From: "Comm"
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:11:07 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,, sci.anthropology.paleo,
"Bob LeChevalier" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]
> "Comm" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>So, um, it looks like you *do* care what people believe, don't you?  :-)
>>> No.  Because if he never said anything and never acted on his beliefs,
>>> I wouldn't know he had them, and therefore would have nothing to
>>> criticize.
>>That is 1984, it is tyrannical in the sense that people either SHUT UP or
>>YOU are going to libel them with a brand that's pretty bad, these days -
> It is not libel if it is true, at least in the USA.  I have made it
> clear how it is true.

No you have not.  You have made 1984 2 plus 2 is 5 clear. I can't believe 
you can't SEE this.
>>No, a person that believes that human beings, like dogs, come in breeds is 
>> >>"a person that believes in racial categories of humans."  The person is 
>>a racist
> We disagree, and the dictionary definition agrees with me.  That you
> use the word in a more limited fashion is not my concern.

The dictionary does not agree - "racist" implies something WAY other than 
just "person who believes in human breeds."  Believing in human breeds has 
NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with better, worse, superior, inferior or hate or 
discrimination.  This is the illogical refential ideation type LEAP that YOU 
keep making about other people, even strangers.  You conveniently turn a 
blind eye to the REST of what the definition takes into account, Bob.
>>and you damned well know the difference in the meanings of the
>>words IN SOCIETY (since you are SO hung on SOCIETAL PERCEPTIONS here). 
>>is a person that believes that the human species is divided up into 
>>races" is a neutral statement, it neither harms nor can it harm.  "He is a
>>racist" is a harmful statement that CAN HARM a person.
> "Sticks and stones may break his bones, but names will never hurt
> him".  Most people learned that in childhood.  If he can't stand the
> heat, get out of the newsgroup.

Heh, the pen can surely BE mightier than the sword, Bob - and you know it. 
If YOU can't stand the heat, make a private egroup.
>>But you now damned well that what it DOES do is make a person go on the 
>> ing defense.
> His problem, not mine.

In the future, it might well BE your problem.  Remember what I know well, 
NOTHING remains in stasis.
>>again, some of us don't give a flying shit about defenses.  I'd kill 
>>I dislike as EASILY as I kill fire ants - IF IT WAS LEGAL.
> I wouldn't.  I have moral values independent of the legal system.

I have no moral values when it comes to an enemy.  Enemies are enemies - no 
compromise, no quarter.  That is Tatar morality and I think it's innate.
>>Yeah, I'm a freaking INhuman monster
> If you say so.
>>I'm a TATAR.
> I thought you were an American.

I'm Tatar-American.
>>HA.  See how that mind game you play can BACKFIRE?
> No.
>>That, on YOUR part, is criminal in intent
> There are no laws against it, and there could not be.

There might be in the future - ya never know.
>>You don't care what people think, so long as they don't FREELY SPEAK it.
> Actually, I don't care if they freely speak it, as long as they do so
> somewhere else.  If I see it in a newsgroup I read, I will respond,
> and I will respond with the nastiness that racism deserves when it is
> put forth with the intent to offend the readership, which is certainly
> the case for virtually all cases where it is posted to the education
> newsgroups.

I have not seen anything offensive posted by the posts I read (I responded 
to the ones I read - so you know which ones I read).  I've seen no racism, 
>>Interesting.  I, on the other hand, DEFEND a person's right to
>>think and SPEAK ABOUT about any  ing god damned to  ing hell they 
>>to speak about - even if it's loathsome speech, like black nationalist 
>>the white men, RAPE all their women."  They have a right to SPEAK it and
>>THINK it and FEEL it.  And god dammit, they DO speak it, think it and
>>definitely FEEL it.
> And if they do so in one of my newsgroups, I have the right to speak
> right back at them.  Why should THEY have the right to offend me, and
> I don't have the right to offend them?

No one said anything remotely like that thus far in what I've read.  Yet 
you have jumped on their backs over nothing.
>>Personally, I'd
>>rather KNOW if someone I work with feels that way than have them SHUT UP 
>>NOT voice what they are feeling at all.  I'd rather KNOW.  Knowledge IS
>>power.  Fear is weakness.  YOU live in fear.  I do not.
> I have no fear of racists under our current society.

I do, sort of - unless they are open about it (that way, I know).  I've met 
WAY TOO MANY racists - and the problem was that NOT ONE of them was of 
European descent.  Interesting, that.
> If they get access to power, then some might have a reason to fear
> them.

They DO have power in some neighborhoods.  They enforce it, too - very 
>>>>Something kind of -- as DK pointed out -- Stalinistic?
>>> Stalin killed people for their words, and sometimes even for other's
>>> perceptions of their words.  I have neither the power nor the desire
>>> to practice Stalinism.
>>Nice out for you there, Bob.  Right, you DO NOT have the power to do it -
>>but don't even TRY to tell me that you don't have the DESIRE to do it.
> I have no desire to kill anyone.
>>Way too much time on your part is INVESTED in 1. READING their posts and 
>>killfiling them by nick
> I don't killfile.  It doesn't really work unless no one at all
> responds to them, and besides, they keep coming back and infesting the
> education newsgroups, keeping out discussion of education.  The only
> good defense against that is a good offense.  Anything else usually
> leads to people abandoning the newsgroup for lost.
>>and then 2. repeatedly responding to people, even if
>>they have not shown an ounce of hate, by libeling them.
> If they don't post to the education newsgroups, I have no reason to
> respond to them.
>>3.  WAY WAY too much time and energy on your part.
> Your evaluation of my time and energy budget is made without
> knowledge.

You work.  I do not.  You have family responsibilities.  I do not.  I do 
know - remember?  Ya told me :)
>>Unlike me - you don't have 24/7 to SLUM on usenet
> How would you know?

Uh, ya told me?
>>I'm home now (duh, obviously),  and SLUMMING.
> So am I.
>>And finally - 4. you ARE on usenet and you know what usenet is
>>like even after 1 WEEK of experience on here - you are NOT on some 
>>yahoogroup (egroup).
> The only effective moderation of unmoderated newsgroups is to flame
> the hell out of anyone who posts off-topic unless they apologize or
> disappear after the first shot across the bow.

LMAO - In Defense of Flame War - by Bob.  NICE!!  HA.  Nah uh.  I belong to 
egroups - and there is NO flaming in there.  This - this is slum.  It's even 
FUNNY - a kind of funny relieve from the GOD DAMNED CHORES I've had to do - 
not even finished yet - building stuff from scratch - only to have the 
damned stain be wrong?  SHIT.  Lots of house stuff my end.  Including 
painting whole place.  I want to GET OUTA HERE - so here I am.
>>> I have a right to feel that way.  And I do.  I don't pretend that my
>>> feelings are "logical".
>>You don't just feel that way and no, your feelings are not logical at all.
>>They are neurotic as hell.  You take time out, spend energy reading and
>>writing and engaging in dialogue - LOTS of it, too - like a good little
>>zealot - when most of what you have to say has been turning libelous.
> In your opinion.  I guess I won't be calling you to serve as my
> attorney.
>>>>Oh yes, one more thing.  Are you really oblivious to the irony of
>>>>your referring to racists as "subhuman"?  :-)  :-)  :-)
>>> Those who are familiar with me and my postings over the years know
>>> that the irony is quite intentional.  Those who are familiar with the
>>> subhuman racist nincompoop sometimes calling itself "John Knight" or
>>> "fathersmanifesto" or more recently "JacobIsrael" will probably be
>>> able to guess why.
>>I never heard of these people, but I'm sure you have spent time and energy
>>reading their posts and writing to them.  Zealot.
> I certainly have.  At times it becomes my chief form of entertainment.
> You would let out your aggression by killing people if you could legal
> do so.  I am content to flame their asses off, which is already legal.

No, I don't have current aggressions at all.  I would kill ENEMIES as easily 
as I kill fire ants.  I made that clear.  I see no difference, either.  I 
don't particularly like having an enemy, fyi.  It sucks.
>>> Those who post about race in the education newsgroups have painted a
>>> bullseye on their tail and asked for me to fire at it.  I am happy to
>>> oblige.  I will continue to do so, subject to time available, as long
>>> as the postings continue.
>>Zealot.  WHO posted in your - u h, YOUR newsgroup?
> I explicitly worded my post to not claim ownership of any newsgroup.
>>Otherwise, you are a zealot
> If I am a zealot, then the person who keeps on responding to me is at
> least as much of a zealot.  The difference is that I only post that
> way in response to someone else; I do not initiate aggression.

You did it to the poster DK.  He called you on it, too.
>> and a libeler.
> Not under the laws of the USA.

Calling DK a racist is libel if he is not one.  No one ever really tries to 
sue over such a thing as far as I know (unless they did and I don't know 
about it).
> lojbab 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>