Michael Brown

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Probably because that statement is not falsifiable? How were you planning to measure "oppressive" anyway? It's like you use these words and you don't know what they mean.

It's completely falsifiable. Again with this comprehension thing - look, I'm not here to fucking educate you people, I'm just here to express an opinion. In another thousand years when some other group of people other than caucasians spends the majority of their time oppressing and subjugating, then the statement will have been falsified.

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In other words, you didn't understand my post, so you called me an idiot.

No, you didn't understand my post, so I questioned your reading capabilities.

[Glenzig]

Still haven't told us which book we should start with. I'm pretty disappointed.

[LulzSect]

not much readin goin on in sidelle's part o town

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Resorting to baseless assertions since you have no actual rebuttal to anything? How disappointing.

Baseless accusations? It's based upon your own words!

Anyone with a grain of sense knows you embody things far worse than racism.

It's really sad that I have to keep reassuring people like you that pointing out the obvious racism of a group of people isn't indicative of racism on my behalf, but simply of racism that pervades every facet of the very culture we're living in.

It just goes to show how deep the termites have gone. It goes to show how pervasive white racism really is, and how desperate you and so many others are to stay nice and comfortably unaware of it.

Do I really have to break down the second and third paragraph for you? Do I really have to illustrate the plethora of double standards contained within your own words?

Now, let's talk about baseless accusations...

Anyone with a grain of sense knows you embody things far worse than racism.

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ah, I should've seen that coming. The old, tired "SJW" argument - that anyone who can argue for the oppressed is carrying around a huge weight of white guilt that they need to exonerate in the form of accusation against anyone who isn't oppressed. I'm glad you said it though, because now I know I can immediately ignore everything you have to say, and I'll only be better off for it.

Way to prove their point with your own response. I don't know if you are aware what direction your rhetoric has been headed in throughout this thread. These Social Justice Warriors are the ones at the forefront of censorship throughout western society.

I don't feel like going through the seventy pages to find it but one of your posts made it very clear that you are what's known as a "sex-negative feminist" as well. Which is extremely telling considering everything that you aspire to be against on the surface are exactly what you've become.

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Every college professor, every scholar, every well-read and literate person I've ever known to be a sane and well-adjusted person understands the oppressive past of caucasian people. It's not a point that's open for debate among anyone who can call themselves educated whatsoever. It's a point that's open for debate on Project 1999 Rants and Flames, because this forum is teeming with pseudos like Kagatob, people who want to argue for the sake of hearing themselves argue like Patriam and Raev, and people who apparently don't understand anything at all like yourself.

Get out more. The SanFran bay area is not known for its peoples' ability to differentiate fiction from reality.

[paulgiamatti]

Oh, please. Pointing out when people are worth ignoring doesn't indicate any kind of double standard on my part or anyone else's.

I could go copy and paste half a dozen explicitly racist, misogynistic, and bigoted remarks that you've made. Do you see now what baseless means? You make things up about other people, while I simply call a spade a spade.

Get help.

[Whirled]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Still haven't told us which book we should start with. I'm pretty disappointed.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

An all time favorite for all ages ^

As far as all the other stuff in this thread...

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Still haven't told us which book we should start with. I'm pretty disappointed.

I'm always happy to recommend literature, but I feel like I'd be overreaching to say which books anyone should read. One thing I realized about myself when concerning the consumption of literature is I pretty much only read things written by people I'm familiarized with in some way. I have to be interested in their ethos or their logos before I can really get comfortable turning the pages of something they've written. That's not to say that I only read things that I agree with - quite to the contrary, I like getting inside the mind of people who can procure compelling arguments against something that I'm morally or ethically invested in.

In any case, here are a couple I've finished recently:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'd imagine one of the things that makes Jefferson hard to write about, especially in a short form, is that he takes part in the enlightenment moment. In the American presidential election of 1796, the election had its choice between two candidates: one was the president of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the other was the founder of the American Academy of Arts and Letters. The candidacy seems to have shriveled a bit since then. Not only that, but under the 1796 rules you could vote for both of them, because the runner-up would be your vice president, and that's what the electorate did. Some might say it was a looted electorate, but it had a rather handsome choice.

Not only taking part in this extraordinary moment of the enlightenment, not only rewriting John Locke's words when he came to compose the Declaration of Independence, changing "life, liberty, and property" - Locke's trivium, or triad, or triaca of ideas - into a formulation I know you don't need me to tell you about. Not only after that leading Virginia through a very perilous period of revolutionary war, and then becoming minister to France, but he's almost continuously in power afterwards for 25 years. And that's before he helped provide us with a vaccination for cholera, and before he founded the University of Virginia, and before he takes a razor to the New Testament to produce the Jefferson Bible, cutting out everything mythical or stupid, leaving himself with a very short edition.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A brilliant evocation of a pre-First World War Britain when the old system, which was basically a liberal system, came under tremendous shocks from the movement for women's suffrage, the movement to disengage from Ireland and the rise of organized labor. In the chapter on the rise of women's suffrage he describes beautifully all the morbid symptoms that appear when the long-repressed - especially sexually repressed - group begin to take their own measures.

The suffragette movement simply for women's franchise, for the right of women to vote, was attacked by all kinds of people for its weirdness. For the way the women started to dress as men, to neglect their families and to behave promiscuously. Many of these symptoms, up to and including suicide on some occasions, were indeed present but when the air cleared it was obviously the result of the original repression. It was a phase through which the movement had to pass.

[Patriam1066]

Holy shit we agree Paul. I am most definitely using a series of straw men. That's only because I have no specific position to refute. You haven't posited anything, you've simply said "read a book" and "white people are oppressive," as if that means something to me. I'm sorry, I've lived in a nonwhite country, and I just don't see it that way. White people are exponentially more tolerant of gays, other races, on down the list, as opposed to pretty much anyone else. Why don't you talk to me about Uganda penalizing homosexuality with death by stoning? Why not have an honest accounting of real or perceived crimes against humanity committed by all races? I'll tell you why, because reality doesn't fit your bull shit narrative. White people are not blameless, not by a long shot, I just don't see what revisionist history accomplishes, especially when white people have the unique dichotomy of simultaneously being imperialist ass holes and purveyors or scientific knowledge and cultural advancement seen in no other society since the beginning of time (that we're aware of).

I'm with Glenzig, why don't you tell me what book to read so that maybe i can see your perspective. Simply saying "white people are shit" doesn't resonate with me. Unlike you, if I am ignorant, I'd like to see another side of the issue, not simply say "I'm tolerant, white people are evil," when, if anything, that proves that you're anything but tolerant.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm always happy to recommend literature, but I feel like I'd be overreaching to say which books anyone should read. One thing I realized about myself when concerning the consumption of literature is I pretty much only read things written by people I'm familiarized with in some way. I have to be interested in their ethos or their logos before I can really get comfortable turning the pages of something they've written. That's not to say that I only read things that I agree with - quite to the contrary, I like getting inside the mind of people who can procure compelling arguments against something that I'm morally or ethically invested in.

In any case, here are a couple I've finished recently:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'd imagine one of the things that makes Jefferson hard to write about, especially in a short form, is that he takes part in the enlightenment moment. In the American presidential election of 1796, the election had its choice between two candidates: one was the president of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the other was the founder of the American Academy of Arts and Letters. The candidacy seems to have shriveled a bit since then. Not only that, but under the 1796 rules you could vote for both of them, because the runner-up would be your vice president, and that's what the electorate did. Some might say it was a looted electorate, but it had a rather handsome choice.

Not only taking part in this extraordinary moment of the enlightenment, not only rewriting John Locke's words when he came to compose the Declaration of Independence, changing "life, liberty, and property" - Locke's trivium, or triad, or triaca of ideas - into a formulation I know you don't need me to tell you about. Not only after that leading Virginia through a very perilous period of revolutionary war, and then becoming minister to France, but he's almost continuously in power afterwards for 25 years. And that's before he helped provide us with a vaccination for cholera, and before he founded the University of Virginia, and before he takes a razor to the New Testament to produce the Jefferson Bible, cutting out everything mythical or stupid, leaving himself with a very short edition.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A brilliant evocation of a pre-First World War Britain when the old system, which was basically a liberal system, came under tremendous shocks from the movement for women's suffrage, the movement to disengage from Ireland and the rise of organized labor. In the chapter on the rise of women's suffrage he describes beautifully all the morbid symptoms that appear when the long-repressed - especially sexually repressed - group begin to take their own measures.

The suffragette movement simply for women's franchise, for the right of women to vote, was attacked by all kinds of people for its weirdness. For the way the women started to dress as men, to neglect their families and to behave promiscuously. Many of these symptoms, up to and including suicide on some occasions, were indeed present but when the air cleared it was obviously the result of the original repression. It was a phase through which the movement had to pass.

Probably both good reads in their own right. Thanks for the suggestions.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

God Bless America, and all of the white males who created it. I wish my ancestors were as wise as John Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Madison, or Voltaire. Alas, mine were worshipping a meteorite in Mecca and killing each other for more goats and sheep.

This reads like it was written by Uncle Ruckus

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]