Think before you speak...

[Chadzilla]

Squishy wrote:
>
> I got no beef with you whatsoever, Chadzilla--our discussions
> are always civil and reasonable, even when we disagree or a
> rare misunderstanding occurs. You spell well, too.
>

Why thank you Squishy.  For the record, I think the only time we ever got close to a spat was over John Carpenter's The Thing.  While it is one of my favorite movies of all time, you made no secret of just how much you detest it.  Fun little tennis match we had there and I remember your opening shot...

"I like you Chadzilla, you seem nice, so I'm going to try and not say angry things to you.." or words to that effect.  What that has to do with the topic at hand, I have not a clue.  But it is one of my favorite board posting memories.

:-)

[Dano]

An article was recently published in my local paper about "white privlege."
*****  Never read it - can't comment.  Sounds like an interesting (though unworkable) concept.  But if it makes you feel better (who knows - it just might), I lump the people who spoke out against the article in the name of white opression right in with the politically correct people who condemn things based on minority opression.  Someone can go ahead and criticize that article based on its merits (what some of us did with Sigourney's comments), but when someone just tries to shout down or silence something out of hand, I get annoyed.  You may realize this if you go back and re-read my reactions to people who said movie stars' political opinions should be silenced.  If this makes me a "vewy angwy white man" or if it makes you a "vewy guilty ex-wasist" then I guess we'll have to live with the labels.  The board would be a better place without them though.

[Andrew]

I officially want this thread, which continues to teeter, to die.  If both parties would please just step back, I am certain it will do so.

I swear, every time politics comes up all hell breaks loose.

[Dano]

My point being, of course, that Fudds have a relatively safe history when it comes to racial victimization in America.
******  Well that makes the slur all right then.  I stand corrected.  As an urban northerner, I can't say much about white opression.  Of course having grandparents named Cazazza and Barchi I suppose I could jump on this "Ban the Sopranos" bandwagon, but that would contradict my nature.  With a great grandmother named Gomez, I might even claim "Hispanic Status" on those various forms the government occasionally passes out to be filled in (not a conspiracy theory - a fact that anyone who deals with government forms knows about).  Again, just not my style.

I have met southerners, however, who are very decent people and who do think of redneck as a slur.  Whether they were ever "victimized" in our History is an interesting debate.  No, I'll not descend any more rungs in your all-important opinion of me - I don't think you can compare their experience to that of blacks... but you don't meet many Georgians named "Sherman," and there's a very good reason for that.  Think southerners aren't still touchy about the Civil War?  You haven't met many southerners.  Like I said, go to a Texas football game and yell redneck if you don't think it's a slur.

[Squishy]

Very well, Dano: There is some debate about whether "redneck" is a slur at all, let alone one equal in power to certain others, but I apologize for using it and will try to refrain from using it again. (Be sure to write Jeff Foxworthy and Mike Judge about this issue.)

For Andrew's sake, let me just clarify two things, then I'm finished:

Dano: "I lump the people who spoke out against the article in the name of white opression right in with the politically correct people who condemn things based on minority opression. Someone can go ahead and criticize that article based on its merits (what some of us did with Sigourney's comments)..."

(1) To my knowledge, no one wrote to protest the article "in the name of white oppression." They wrote because they perceive the "white privlege" subject as an assault on them--you know, "politically-correct nonsense." They completely missed the point of the original article because of a knee-jerk reactionary nature.

(2) "Some of us" don't even understand Sigourney Weaver's comments. "Some of us," as I pointed out earlier, picked up on this from the original post on this message board, read into it what we wanted to, and missed the point of the original article because of a knee-jerk reactionary nature.

Okay, three things.

Dano: "...Politically correct people (who) condemn things based on minority oppression."

Condemn things like racism...and oppression?
This is wrong?
...Wow.
I mean, WOW.  :D

[Squishy]

http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/2002/11/18/

Andrew, you might want to consider posting this strip when these things happen--then we can start squabbling over which one of us is "blither" and which one is "blather." :)

[Jim H]

Here's your sarcastic flame response.  Not really, but hey.

"More than one person has made comments about how unrealistic it was that Mel Gibson's family in Signs had no weapons (shotgun, rifle, pistol, SOMETHING), but I never gave it a second thought, being a person with no weapons "

I did notice that, and I never grew up with a gun.  I didn't fire one til I was 18.  Shooting clay pigeons is pretty damn fun though, you should give it a try if you never have.  Of course, my uncle is a farmer, and it is true: almost all farmers have some guns.  Their kids always grow up using them to, and of course they essentially never have accidents since they're used to them and are not curious about them.  

"So I fully agree with Ms. Weaver's statement in real life situations. "

I agree to.  You shouldn't pull out a gun to deal with your problems.  Does anyone DISAGREE with that?  

"My dad had a gun when I was kid (.38 I believe) although he believed he had everything well hidden, my brother and I knew exactly where he kept it (nightstand) and were they kept the bullets (Mom's jewelry box). One day I played with it, he got rid of it and never regretted it. "

He should of kept it locked..  Just keep it locked in the bedroom WITH the bullets in the same place, and it's faster to get it ready then having them unlocked in two seperate places - for those home defense situations millions of people are so worried about.

[Dano]

Condemn things like racism...and oppression?
This is wrong?
...Wow.
I mean, WOW. :D
*****  No.  I mean condemning things like a crack about Rosa Parks in a movie.  Or condemning a white actor playing a Vietnamese character in Broadway's Miss Saigon.  Or condemning an historian who wrote about corruption as a small part of his study of the black majority in the South Carolina state legislature during the 1870s.  That kind of thing.  Unless you consider that racism and oppression.  In which case, wow right back at you, Squish.

[Dano]

..