White Female Privilege gone wild!! Portly Dyke on Acid!! Ginmar sucks potatoes!!

I was called to a blog by a friend who, like myself, is a socialist--but not one of those PC rhetoriticians that live their lives in academia socialists, or those identity politics socialists--I am an equal opportunity socialist, and that includes people of all races who need a lift.

Well, anyways, this blog is called "Teh Portly Dyke"--no doubt one of those insular, narrow minded blogs by yet another half wit, unattractive old dyke using her blog to fish for young lesbians( pun intended--and she puts a pic of her saggy gross tits on the front page!!)--preferably young lesbians whose boundaries have been so invaded by their mothers that they are ready and trained for the loving hands of PD.....

So anyways, the blog post asked "Why do discussions about race always devolve into discussions about class?", and I tried to help them out--but to no avail!! White women don't want answers to that question, because the answers are always that white female privilege gets in the way, and jock blocks discussions( I am breaking out trolls little whining fiddle: white women were *forced to wear corsets* once upon a time !! White women were called witches when they were caught sexually abusing children, or fucking each other..!! fiddle fiddle fiddle....)

I was castigated in the dialogue--as has happened before when I inadvertently wade into these half-wit "we" fests...us and them.... us and them... us and them.,....I hate it when people I know invite me through their links into these piss pot blogs;-(
Here is how it went;-)


"Yeah, white privilege is s/th that predominantly middle class people bandy about, which is why these various blogs you mention devolve into discussions about class,and oppression, etc. Also, the historic dismissal of the issues of white poverty, or class racism (interclass as well)are widely held to be less important than breaking out a little fiddle for a month every year, and feeling white and guilty.

The fact is, many many white people are called nigger--it is a rite of passage in any inner city setting where whites are outnumbered by blacks, and, when the white kids get jumped, beaten, or otherwise abused in these setting, it is likely that they are being called a nigger, or in the very least, a "white boy", which is a castrating, demeaning label to any young man.

The problem in this dialectic of whiteness and privilege is that only privileged whites discuss it, and the kid who is in the situation to be called a nigger is not aware of recourses, like bitching about it on a blog, or as undereducated about individual rights and their expression as his black playmates, kin, or neighborhood partners.

Moreso, the whites who do all the yapping about it have never endured the experiences of being harassed at length for their skin color, imprisoned, or otherwise abused by or within 'black' culture.It is a forbidden topic amongst lefties and PC rhetoriticians.

It is easy to read about race in textbooks, watch PBS every Martin Luther K. day, and adopt the rhetoric of empty headed second hand babbling about race disparity, but much harder to live it as a white person, because as these babblers well know, they would rather yack about it than give up their own white privilege.

As well, white female privilege has emerged as a driving force behind the anti-white rhetoric, and I suspect this is because white women can read about their own "oppression" by the patriarchy, but seldom have thgeir asses kicked ( like white and black men) or suffer from injust racial profiles ( like any 'white' man who drives with 'black friends' in his car) or ever suffers the indignities of being labeled criminal, and its after effects (labeling theory) in the profile because criminal profiles are almost exclusively targeted at men.
the real Napoleon Champagne | 12.03.07 - 9:27 pm | #

Once I left my insular white world where diversity was Catholics and Protestants and I entered a diverse university, I began to teach myself to be aware of my own upbringing and my own status. I have for many years questioned my reactions to race issues, "Am I leaving my upbringing behind on this? Consider whether unconscious prejudice colors your view of it." And that questioning includes my reading of this long string.

Many whites of good will avoid the conversation of race because they suspect that it will not be a conversation at all but a lecture series, the subject of which is how they are racists and are incapable of seeing institutional racism because of their privilege. This string appears to be another one of those lectures. There was one suggestion that intimidation may have a part in it, and that suggestion was promptly shouted down. Another pushback was deleted entirely and we must trust that it was trollish drivel because the board owner says it was.

Meanwhile, many of the so-called privileged whites wonder why if they are so privileged they aren't doing as well in life as lots of other folks of all colors. They get figurative sand kicked in their face a good bit, too. They can understand that it often happens because of race and that it shouldn't. But sometimes sand gets kicked up simply because of the competitive nature of life.
Hughes | 12.03.07 - 11:40 pm | #

But my "Why?" is really about the pervasive assumption that people of color will always take the low road.

While I make no prediction at all about what will happen in a "minority majority" America, I think it's worth remembering that tribal responses to "the other" are not unique to Caucasians. They're a universal human behavior.
oddjob | 12.03.07 - 11:56 pm | #

(BTW, I posted my comment before reading the two comments immediately prior to mine, so it was not influenced in any way by those comments, nor should it be read in a context with those two comments.)
oddjob | 12.04.07 - 12:04 am | #

"As well, white female privilege has emerged as a driving force behind the anti-white rhetoric, and I suspect this is because white women can read about their own "oppression" by the patriarchy, but seldom have thgeir asses kicked"

My post is not "anti-white" rhetoric of any kind -- it was a call for white commenters on this blog to step up and have the nads to talk about the racism experienced by people of color, and to examine their own white privilege, rather than changing the subject. I believe that I was quite specific about this in my post.

Before you generalize about "white women" who "can read about their own oppression", perhaps you should research who I am a little better -- unfortunately, as a white woman, I haven't had the luxury of simply "reading about" my own oppression at the hands of the patriarchy -- I've lived it -- I have the physical scars to prove it -- want to see the x-ray of my pelvis, which was fractured when I was raped at age 3?

Your comment is precisely the kind of derailment that I was talking about -- you are attempting to take a blog-post about racism and white privilege and make it about how the poor white menz -- they R so oppressed.

Note to U: As a woman, I didn't even have to be "labeled a criminal" to suffer indignities at age 3 --I just had to be female. The straight, white male who raped me was never confronted, never charged, and walks free today -- precisely because he was a straight, white male.

But that, too, is a derailment from my post. If you're a straight, white, man and you are making this kind of comment, believe me, you are on top of the privilege heap, and I have no problem saying this to you: Shut the fuck up about my experience. You are the poster child who makes this kind of post necessary.

To "Hughes", re: "There was one suggestion that intimidation may have a part in it, and that suggestion was promptly shouted down. Another pushback was deleted entirely and we must trust that it was trollish drivel because the board owner says it was."

The troll in question has been repeatedly banned at this blog for months, has posted overtly racist comments here, and if you were a regular at this blog, you'd know that. As to the suggestion of intimidation being "shouted down" -- -- the exchange with "Danny" went on for some time -- and as far as I can see, no one ever went "ALL CAPS" on him, even though Danny has made blatantly misogynist comments on this blog in other threads.

As I've said before, it's probably a good thing that some of you aren't people of color, or women, or queer -- given your need to have people agree with your POV, I don't think you could handle it.
PortlyDyke | Homepage | 12.04.07 - 3:09 am | #

To oddjob re this: "tribal responses to "the other" are not unique to Caucasians. They're a universal human behavior."

If you mean, by this, that a response to automatically repel or subjugate "the other" is universally human, I must respectfully disagree.

I think that human tribal responses to "the other" are extremely diverse based on enculturation.

Example: I believe that the diversity of enculturated tolerances for "the other" may have played a big role in determining which tribal peoples in the Americas were rubbed out entirely, and which managed to survive, however tenuously.

Many East and West Coast tribal groups were completely wiped out (even though, or perhaps precisely because, they were initially welcoming of "the other"), and mistrust of white people as "other" transformed into an enculturated response for other tribal groups as Manifest Destiny hacked its ugly path across the continent.

While I agree that some kind of response to the "strange/other" is universal in most mammals, I believe that, in the Western world, there has been a distinct difference in how predominantly Caucasian cultures deal with "the other" as compared with non-Caucasian cultures.

Today, straight, white, christian people who adhere to patriarchal ethics want people who are not straight, white, christian, or male to become (or at least act like) they are straight/white/christian/male, or adhere to their "proper" role if they can't magically change their skin color or gender. (ie. If you're black, sit at the back of the bus, don't be "uppity", etc., if you're a woman, serve men and don't be "uppity", if you're gay, act straight and don't be "uppity", etc., etc. etc.)

The cant of western Caucasian society for the last 1000 years (at least) has always been: Become like us . . . . or face death, enslavement, violence, or disenfranchisement.

In my opinion, this cant is NOT universally human. There have been many, many human cultural groups that do not carry this meme.
PortlyDyke | Homepage | 12.04.07 - 4:11 am | #

OK, I'm convinced on the troll. I was ignorant of his frequent flyer status, since I came over here with a link from Pandagon.

As I've said before, it's probably a good thing that some of you aren't people of color, or women, or queer -- given your need to have people agree with your POV, I don't think you could handle it.

Personally I have no more need to have people agree with me than you have. Perhaps your need is to condescend to other viewpoints.
Hughes | 12.04.07 - 7:43 am | #

Hughes -- I think maybe you missed the point of my comment.

I think that if you search "Danny" in this thread (I'm assuming that's what your referring to as "the one suggestion of intimidation"), you'll find a discussion that was not, in my opinion, simply a "shout down".

It's been my experience that when people of privilege find themselves in a position where the majority of those in the discussion don't agree (especially if that majority is composed of people who do not possess privilege), they tend to claim that they have been intimidated or "shouted down" or "censored".
PortlyDyke | Homepage | 12.04.07 - 1:05 pm | #

Well, thank you for your brief bio, and castigation of my post, without addressing the substance within that post that directly dealt with your query, and tried to offer you a legitimate response. Now let me try to imagine why you feel your posts become derailed...hmmm...what do they all have in common? YOU.

So before I try to get back on topic a little about myself: I have seen white women do things to children that men are languishing in prison for, i.e. rape, but we don't call it rape when women do it, because women use different coerciveness, methods, and bodily members.
I will not indulge you gratuitously in my personal, or childhood experiences with those women, but will leave it to say that I feel your pain.
As well, after years of activism for Afro Ams, I woke up in a hospital shot to death by four black kids calling me a "stupid white mother fucker," a "nigger bitch", etc.

When I asked the hard question of 'why me" the answer that came back was their own: because I am white. The next answer took me years to formulate, but it was this: bitter, angry, vengeful, and often unattractive ( judged soley by the core problematic 'ism' -- lookism)disgruntled white women, who at that time were struggling through their own issues, their fears that they were losing their own privilege, held up white men as deflective shields, and were memeplexing the universe with phrases like 'dead white men', etc.; and I reasoned, quite rightly so based on your response, that some of them would rather hold on to their anger and hate than deal with forgiveness, and truly overcome their own biases, and their own insecurities about race--the fear of black booty being more desireable than their own. After all, it is white women, and their priviledge, that has allowed them to hog the spots that affirmative action has offered to African Americans ( look it up).
White women: whiteness' last ditch attempt to maintain power in a changing 'racial' demographic.

Again, I will not indulge you in more personal information, as your callous response has not merited my details, so delete away, and remember: the one thiong derailment has in common on your blog? You, and your venomous, unadressed rage. I am sorry for what happened to you; conditional that you are sorry for what happened to me.

Then again, go smoke a toad, you self trolling blogster
the real Napoleon Champagne | 12.04.07 - 10:05 pm | #

You think my response was venomous, unadressed rage?

Oh kiddo, you make me laugh, you really do.

PortlyDyke | Homepage | 12.05.07 - 4:02 am | #

Oh, and BTW "real" Napolean Champagne -- I wasn't even talking about MY posts being derailed -- which you'd probably know if you'd actually read my post . . . . you did actually READ the post, didn't you?
PortlyDyke | Homepage | 12.05.07 - 4:04 am | #

So Frustrating.
Hughes, people of color all over the world wish our only problem was the whimsy of the fates, that all we had to deal with was the occasional sand in the face theory you posted. The problem is, when you are a person of color, you ALWAYS get the sand in your face. And if fate/mother nature/whoever decides to kick some more sand in your face, there you go. double trouble. So please chill with that crap--yes life is hard, but it is DOUBLY-TRIPLY hard if you have been castigated from birth. I soooo wish you could be black so you can experience it.

Next, PD you hit it on the head. You are the first white person I've heard acknowledge and agree with something I've been saying for YEARS: White people are afraid of Karma. They are scared of racism because they KNOW how bad they've treated POC in the world, and they absolutely fear the day when the karmic wheel comes back on their ass. And I can understand them, that's a very valid fear. Cuz when it comes it will be a mutha! Not to espouse race war or some nonsense--or to support groups that are obviously the Black equivalent of Stormfront or KKK. Because you don't have to do anything, Karma moves on it's own.
The problem is how can we get white folks to understand their own fears? If we could do that, then maybe we--with them--could start working on the state of society today. Which I think would lessen the damage they've done in the past. And maybe 'karma' is a bad word or example; I don't want to come off like some weird new age guru shouting 'the end is near!' or anything like that! lol I can just see that everytime i hear a white person say something like, "I never owned slaves, why should I pay reparations" while they still living off of slave paper (thanks mos def) or "why can't all those mexicans go home" (when a lot of this country used to be their home--just my opinion) while they have illegals landscaping and building their mansions (Tom Tancredo!)--they are really playing ostrich because they are afraid of someone taking them to task for their actions. DUDES! Just admit that shit was wrong, that you are still benefitting from it--which is wrong, and move on to making things RIGHT! It's really not that hard. Or is it???
tmj707 | Homepage | 12.05.07 - 1:46 pm | #

Also, I agree with Melissa when she said why do whites filled with guilt assume people of color will automatically take the low road? Why assume we will immediately and savagely enslave you and take away your rights like you have done to others? I don't see Native Americans doing that with their casino riches (maybe because there are lots of white folks that get a cut of those riches but whatever).
Oh wait--it's because white folks still think POC ARE savages, so of course we will immediately attack them. Sorry, answered my own question.
The truth is that historically, Black folks have been extremingly forgiving of those who have trespassed against them--sometimes nauseatingly so. If we follow history, sure there will be some folks who want to tear up stuff, but most folks will be like "Phew! Glad that's over!" and get back to living.
tmj707 | Homepage | 12.05.07 - 1:51 pm | #

"it's because white folks still think POC ARE savages, so of course we will immediately attack them."

tmj707 -- I think it's that -- AND -- a classic case of projection. The white western conqueror meme is so strongly enculturated that it is difficult for people of privilege to imagine that anyone else would not do with privilege what they have done with privilege -- oppress, destroy, humiliate, and terrorize.
PortlyDyke | Homepage | 12.05.07 - 2:44 pm | #

PD: you addressed my post directly! You cannot possibly back out of it!

"Your comment is precisely the kind of derailment that I was talking about -- you are attempting to take a blog-post about racism and white privilege and make it about how the poor white menz -- they R so oppressed."

It is this knee jerk kind of assumption about what I *might* think about your experience--at the time you told me to STFU I hadn't even adressed you personally, nor had I generalized about your experience--I was addressing your query, directly--yet it is interesting indeed that every time I confront the "white men are all..." memeplex, I realize that the opposite meme " white women are all..." immediately becomes very very personal for those women who use its cohort.

Equally, the ism of "misandry(ism)" doesn't even get second billing--despite the fact that it is the driving force of all human economy: men die, are incarcerated every day, and often for life, die in the workplace,and recently do not graduate college, or often even high school, etc., men pay the brunt of the social burden of this sort of lopsided rhetoric--so everything white seems fair game except white female privilege, the exact privilege for whom rape and property crimes laws were put on the books; men have been been forced into war ( we don't want the franks/huns/japs/darkies/spics/francos/savages ( insert favored epithet here--raping/consorting with....our women/mothers/sisters/etc...)murdered, hung, lynched, etc . History has never had women going to war to 'protect' men--and this is not a country whose slogan is "God Father, and Country"
I hate to state the obvious, but it was white men mixed with 'other men' who waged Shay's rebellion,hung out with witches in the shanties of Salem and were burned as well; that cofounded the abolition movement; fought the Civil War that ( whether intended or not, freed blacks from slavery)liberated Daschau, Auschwitz, etc; that died in Bataan, and every where else that America waged war to feed the children of the women of America;that still occupy the front lines ( I don't hear the equality cheerleaders yelping to get more women into front bootleg grunt work, or into more sewer cleaning jobs).

All I mean to suggest is that one of the main reasons that the race dialogue stalls is that white women, pedastalized for centuries, are kind of a roadblock against truly oppressed voices--white men are barely in the dialogue, and when they are, it is most often at the beck and call of the PC, monopolizing, rhetorical white matriarchy that insists that white men first bow down to their viewpoints, and closely held fears of savagery ( just like in Victorian times) and kiss their hand before being 'allowed' to continue in the dialogue! So that the real savagery becomes not merely men kowtowing to white female rhetorical privilege, but then, everyone else in the dialogue, once they see the almighty power of Wonder Whitey woman...she that makes the evil patriarchal and ever 'powerful' and 'oppressive' white man bow down...

Privilege is a trickle down by-product of proper ass kissing, and sure, with whitey out of the dialogue, others can speak--but only, and after, we get the mediating white woman o.u.t. of the way.

Who is actually afraid of losing power here? I suspect it isn't the white guy from Fort Sill who speaks with 'black' patois, and tells us that his brothers are black, nor is it the 'white' housepainter with the 8th grade education, or the who did his time as 50% of the prison system( the guy who was actively discouraged by the rhetoric of the national movement of theoretical misandrist femniz from Academica to go to college) Encino who gets equal pay and likely no benefits, just like his coworkers Jose, Fidel, and Miraculo--the guys to whom he gladly, and daily jests ' Qu vo , Puto?!"-- a guy totally outside the elitist so-called leftist dialogue, where it is more important to *talk* about homophobia, and point fingers at him, rather than at the huge domestic violence in the gay comm.

After all, at least the guys seven stories up teetering on a ladder for a living have each others companionship and understanding, and actually do *work* together, something the elite rhetorical left has largely forgotten exists. It isn't, in the end about po' white menz, it is really about all men, and how the hand kissing act of the privileged, wolf crying white woman has doled out social privilege for centuries, and denied its role in the opportunity maintainance structure( status quo)--a far easier job, I would think, than lifting a transmission off of your chest for the seventh time in a day, seven days a week, just to barely get by.

No wonder many of them draw straw man strength from Limbaugh Radio--anyone else who could speak the truth about the hardship of the majority of male lives is too busy slicing and dicing them in the rhetoric, and the righties win again, cuz the lefties ( future righties) are too busy penis envying,and castrating the boogeyman of maleness, rather than doing the hard work of , um....work.
Oppression is oppression, and those who talk the most about it have never actually suffered it--except in the metaphorical world of "could have" and "almost did" and " for a long time before this we did suffer...." rather than actually suffering.

BTW, where I come from, being denigrated as a white boy is held as a sign of privilege to young dumb 'white males'--it is a sign that they have stepped up a notch--they have in the eyes of 'black' people been promoted-- from white trash to "almost a nigger"--then, if he is really really a good white boy, he can be called a nigger by his black friends--his graduation into the cyclical, endless lower class acceptance of the hopelessness of ever changing the status quo( as outlined above), and particularly *his* world of status quo--or having a meaningful lasting effect on a dialogue most 'white men' do not even know exists!--that is the sad reality of that set of race words.
Anonymous | 12.06.07 - 7:40 pm | #

oops...last comment was mine *sigh* I forgitted me moniker, y'all.
Now I will go and find me a pants lifter, and pull my freaking draws up where they belong, AND tie my tennis shoes.
the real Napoleon Champagne | 12.06.07 - 7:47 pm | #

Just read through the male priveledge checklist and I am very impressed. I really do think, for better or worse, that the "breakdown" is an important part of fostering understanding - maybe because many of us learn from outlines. On the darker side, the need for such extensive breakdowns can be a crutch/symptom of the unawareness of male priveledge. Why do we need such hefty explainations? On the positive side, I am happy to have read it, and hope that it gives me a higher sense of understanding as a man, even if only the slightest. This checklist is definitely the reason for me bookmarking this. I haven't checked out the white priviledge yet, only because I'm not white. But definitely worth looking at next time.

To all men out there, you have to power to do better, just tap into it and keep learning. Thank you for this article, conversation, and checklist.
Harry | Homepage | 12.06.07 - 10:16 pm | #

"Now I will go and find me a pants lifter, and pull my freaking draws up where they belong, AND tie my tennis shoes."

This kind of racist stereotyping is not welcome on this thread. Do it again, and I will delete your comments.

Fair warning.
PortlyDyke | Homepage | 12.07.07 - 1:09 am | #

Speaking in such a zionist way is an attack on goyish European Americans. Why should we listen to someone insulting us and our culture in such a Bushite way?

You are advocating "new realities", a "colored revolution" to destroy our soveignty and tradition. What you argue is Jacobin and Neocon. What you advocate is Tikkum Olam, a religious virtue not shared by gentiles and is inherently warlike in nature. Tikkun Olam is this war in the middle east we are having, destroying another Traditional society and traditional goyish people.

.
Irish bulldyke solidadt with Z | 12.09.07 - 1:32 am | #

PD: No "racist stereotyping" warnings required: again, I see that reality, and the two "white kids" on the bus the other day with the draggy pants and the untied shoes, the Native American kid, and their equally attired "black friends" aren't "black enough" for the horribly limiting, and narrowly focused PC discourse here. Apparently mixed race/mixed culture dialogues aren't part of what is "black"....sounds a bit , um, Octaroon to me.....

Your reaction to the theoretically racist comment of pulling up my pants, etc, is exactly the type of example of clueless race baiting from the left that rhetoriticians, sans any touch with reality, knee jerk to: you miss the exact point that I and many others personally have had to do exactly that to get along in society!Pull ourselves up by the britches and try to succeed, despite our limiting class and race factors-- As if droopy drawers either ARE a "black thing" ( they are not) and untied shoes are either--no one has a lockup( pardon the prison pun) on those relics of cultural class habitus, yet you presume that it is racist to say such! How presumptuous and uninformed about what is going on out here!!

Again, I apologize for having attempted to answer your question--maybe next time, I will be reincarnated as a second ring suburb white liberal with an SUV, and a head full of Latte laden PC rhetoric about "black people", and no actual experiences "as a black person",as a person from within "black culture", or as a "blackened" person in the "white rhetoric". Then, I can just knee jerk my way through dialogues I know virtually nothing about, and ask questions that I really already have answers for that imterpsplice nicely with predefined dualistic paradigms that preclude original thinking outside the box.
the ral Napoleons Slip-ons | 12.09.07 - 9:50 am | #

Oh, christ, want some help with that fucking cross? Nothing's more obvious than some asshole conservative whining about "PC"--- a conservative catchphrase that means, "OMG, I can't be an asshole when I want to! WAH!"
ginmar | Homepage | 12.09.07 - 11:17 am | #

ginmar:
would you believe that I voted Green in my last local election, grew up in Chicago--mixed race
Probably not: you can't seem to get your head out of the pink pickle barrel.
I am a socialist, a former lefty, and just plain tired of the stagnant rhetoric of middle class "liberals"-- the other right wing meat.
the real Androgyna Tryfem | 12.09.07 - 11:33 am | #

Yeah, fuck you and fuck your bullshit generalizations, asshole. I'm a blue collar liberal and I'm in the Army. I just don't give a fuck what some anonymous turd says on the web--especially when they sneer so OBVIOUSLY at the movement they claim to be a member of. Classic conservative bullshit.

"Pink Pickle BArrel."

Funny we've got all these trolls with different names saying the same shit. IP check, anyone?
ginmar | Homepage | 12.09.07 - 11:40 am | #

ginmar:well, flame away, but make sure you don't read any of my earlier posts, or adress my comment,critique, and my actual experience at all--just keep flaming!

You have waaaaaaaayyyy too much time on your hands.You also sound mad about peeling those potatoes there in front of you. Maybe get a life outside the heirarchical, institutional racism based military industrial complex, and it's CIA sanctioned dialogues, and breathe....breathe....calming breaths

re: " the movement they claim to be a member of"

I never claimed anything about being part of a movement! What is it with you military types, always needing the affirmation of massively mobilized gun toting opinions? That is exactly the fascist pseudo left rhetorical basis I am talking about. Racism, race dialogues, and any other thing thta used to be openly and individually discussed are now the realm of 'mobilized units of dualist philosophy" and individuality is out the window.
First sure sign of fasdcism is an insistence that individual experiences, and individual opinions take second seat to jackbooted collective opinions.

IP check? You dipwad: University of Minnesota, Department of Cross Cultural Studies. Does that help you, herr commandant?
I get it: this is one of those 'empowering blogs' where jaded half educated idiots raised in middle class families get to use the F- word for the first time, cuz y'all use it alot--without actively responding to the comments above.

You know what I hate about blogs? Other bloggers put your links on their blogs, and then, when one of us comes and tries to participate, we get jumped into these insular,miniscule, and myopic dialogues between the six other people who actively participate on that blog--much to the expense of proactive dialogue.

ginmar, in your line of rationale, and your rhetorical savy, I respond with a parting that comes from within your limited dialectic: Sieg Heil!
the real Androgyna Tryfem | 12.09.07 - 1:04 pm | #

God, what a fucking asshole you are. Take your stereotypes and your bullshit and your lies somewhere else.

Can I get a Godwin? I think this moron hit every piece of bullshit on the bingo card.

No homepage, either. Of course, that really adds to your credibility.
ginmar | Homepage | 12.09.07 - 4:11 pm | #

Unless you're admitting you're trolling under other names, moron, the first comment you made on this post was the one where you implied the 'pink' whaever, so fuck off.
ginmar | Homepage | 12.09.07 - 4:14 pm | #

As a Minnesotan, this sounded fishy:

University of Minnesota, Department of Cross Cultural Studies

According to the University website, no such department.
MAJeff | Homepage | 12.09.07 - 4:42 pm | #

You mean, they lied?! Color me shocked.
ginmar | Homepage | 12.09.07 - 5:58 pm | #

Betcha they don't comment again, now that they've been caught.
ginmar | Homepage | 12.09.07 - 5:58 pm | #

I completely concede a Godwin to ginmar.

Sorry I wasn't watching this thread more closely today.

To napoleon-whatever-anonymous (AKA cannot be held accountable because they will not identify themselves in any real way):

Do not project nazism onto people who have not attempted to exterminate you on this thread. I will delete future comments in which you do so (but you'll probably try to find some other way to be offensive).

To readers of this thread: I have allowed the existing comments to stand purposely -- I believe that they demonstrate perfectly the type of derailment I was talking about in the original post. If you haven't read the original post, please do so. I encourage you to ignore napolean-wev, as this commenter is not addressing any of the points of the post, and seems to be only interested in creating discord rather than discussion.

Personally, I'll be ignoring this commenter (except to redact or edit future posts), and I encourage you to do the same.
PortlyDyke | Homepage | 12.09.07 - 11:02 pm | #

Really, I look forward to about four hundred years where white women can be owned as property, and raped at will by their owners, and the slaved outwhite men can be off in the fields, doing whatever work they have to do to get the four-hundred- years-from-now hip hop movement started, instead of perpetuating
this sort of drivel above. Then, all things could be equal. There is a solution, right?
I will be buried in China by then, watching all it all from my grave as you fight it out here for the amusement of todays white women, and try to outdo each other in owning that skimpy piece of cultural capital called "white guilt," and "black rage", but knowing that 1) imperialism is cyclical 2) class and class conflict are constant 3) whiteness is a transient imperial notion.
It is designed to dole out privilege to those who want to scrap over it, and vye for its scantilly clad compensation of "being politically correct" in the generation in which those who can benefit from that privilege lived.
My epitaph will be :
"I said Oakland do you wanna ride???"
and a big huge smiley face, like this
;-P
the real Socia L. Works | 12.10.07 - 2:43 am | #

and that is when pd censored me;-)
censorship is the sincerest form of flattery, for as one famous S. Court judge said about obscenity: " I know it when i see it," and that, in his own heart, first.
Like Henry Miller said of this 'In order to label something obscene, the beholder first sees that obscenity in themselves, and then goes about charging others with it.'
Viva Henry...