Quake3World

DUMBEST CUNT EVAR?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75351.html

Seriously, what a psychotic, racist bitch.

Anyone who still uses that term is either totally out of touch and completely ignorant, racist, or trying to instigate shit. I'm sure that on her part all apply.

Ok, maybe it's because I'm not familiar with the term, but the article makes it look as if the term can be interpreted in two ways, which would make it an unfortunate choice of words rather than the highly insulting remarks of a radical racist. You guys make it look like she's head of the KKK.

Perhaps she's just slightly more educated than everyone thinks and everyone else just likes to find seemingly in offensive things offensive just to cause a shit storm. Would it be deemed racist if Obama wasnt black?

Facebook needs to broaden its social interactive vocabulary beyond 'like'. Perhaps 'disgust', 'burn the cunt', etc.

Transient wrote:Anyone who still uses that term is either totally out of touch and completely ignorant, racist, or trying to instigate shit. I'm sure that on her part all apply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby

"John McCain, John Kerry, Michelle Bachmann, and Mitt Romney"

Don Carlos wrote:

Steven Fry was a nigger

Hans Teeuwen once said in a Dutch television show hosted by three Muslim girls that being offended is a choice. People have the choice to be offended by something or not. I pretty much agree with him there.

People get offended because they want to get offended.

yes

Eraser wrote:Hans Teeuwen once said in a Dutch television show hosted by three Muslim girls that being offended is a choice. People have the choice to be offended by something or not. I pretty much agree with him there.

that's because it is a choice. it's incredible that anyone thinks otherwise

taking offence to something is only one of many ways of responding to that something, ergo you can choose, ergo you're responsible

Eraser wrote:Ok, maybe it's because I'm not familiar with the term, but the article makes it look as if the term can be interpreted in two ways, which would make it an unfortunate choice of words rather than the highly insulting remarks of a radical racist. You guys make it look like she's head of the KKK.

In the US there is no other interpretation of that phrase. It's blatantly racist and she's just hoping that she can stir up shit and not get branded a hateful, racist bitch because complete morons (READ: ALL OF HER SUPPORTERS) will say that "SHE'S CLEARLY TALKING ABOUT TAR THAT COMES FROM OIL BECAUSE PRESIDENT OSAMA IS WAGING WAR ON THE FRIENDLY OIL COMPANIES BECAUSE HE HATES AMERICA BECAUSE HE'S A COMMUNIST FACIST MUSLIN KENYAN BLACK AFRICAN NEGRO MAN."

Jesus Nightshade, you've become angry as of late. I thought you chilled out...

in this country, she'd be questioned by the police

britain

seremtan wrote:

Eraser wrote:Hans Teeuwen once said in a Dutch television show hosted by three Muslim girls that being offended is a choice. People have the choice to be offended by something or not. I pretty much agree with him there.

that's because it is a choice. it's incredible that anyone thinks otherwise

taking offence to something is only one of many ways of responding to that something, ergo you can choose, ergo you're responsible

Okay, I'll buy that, but allow me to play devil's advocate. What if we take an extreme situation as example? Say Michele Bachmann was violently gang-raped, tortured and beaten over the course of several days, barely survived to tell about it, and had scars to constantly remind her of the event. If someone told her she deserved it because of her low-cut skirt and general ass-hattery, would she be choosing to be offended by that statement, or would it go beyond choice and simply be innately offensive to her? Or does that go beyond offense? Just curious.

that's an interesting point, though the scenario you're describing is pretty extreme - not at all in the same league as someone using the phrase 'tar baby' or making a joke about the welsh. it's also worth noting that the example you give is very personal, aimed at a specific person, in the context of a specific incident - whereas most of what counts as 'offense giving/taking' is usually more general. even so, it's quite possible that someone could simply choose to ignore or dismiss such a comment

seems like 'ability to dismiss stupid comments' exists in inverse proportion to 'ego fragility', and that the more someone defines themselves in terms of 'vulnerability', the more likely they are to take offense. on the other hand, the mentally/emotionally tougher they are, the more easily they can dismiss 'offensive' remarks

which then begs an obvious question: which character trait is considered socially more desirable - vulnerability or toughness? seems pretty clear the answer is: vulnerability (at least that's true of this country - with possible exception of the military). so, to answer your question: there's no such thing as 'innately' offensive; willingness to take offense is a function of a socially 'selected-for' character trait (self-identification as 'vulnerable')

tl;dr - people take offense easily because society tells them they are fragile and vulnerable, and therefore easily wounded, and furthermore promises that if they accept this fragile, vulnerable role, they will receive sympathy and attention

lol

^ fragile ego

society made me this way :rollseyes:

canadian society

xer0s wrote:Jesus Nightshade, you've become angry as of late. I thought you chilled out...

As much as I loathe stupidity, especially organized stupidity, don't mistake caps lock for rage. It's not like I've turned into Randy or anything, just using a keyboard function to imply a voice of a group of people.

Fag.

Don't feed the moron. You'll only make him think he's smarter than he is and he'll post more. WE DON'T WANT THAT.

Christ, GKY, such rage...