djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 26, 2015 9:38:26 GMT -5
Perhaps, but you DID ask him how he PERSONALLY makes the distinction. And I feel quite safe in answering that for him. He personally would make the distinction on that basis regardless of what 'younger zealots' might say. Fair enough, DJ-by-proxy. of course. i am all about universal principles. if it can't be applied equally in all similar situations, then it is not a principle worth owning.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 26, 2015 10:02:58 GMT -5
You're piggybacking (for lack of a better word) your ethical worldview onto "intolerance of intolerance" and attaching caveats that many (most?) adherents couldn't care less about. You also doesn't offer any hints at how you personally make the distinction between good and bad intolerance. Perhaps you can help me out by indicating which of the five examples in #240 you would tolerate. As for you, Tall, and mmhmm being proof of a pretty strong following, you may have noticed that the politics board has dwindled to the 10-or-so most hardcore political wonks of what was originally thousands of members in a very narrow demographic. So no, I don't consider a sample of three individuals dumb enough to hold out as long as we have to be proof of a pretty strong anything. ETA: It also comes to mind that our own board is a very strong selector for tolerance. Specifically, any ex-members who felt the board was too intolerant (or equivalently, too tolerant of bad intolerance) will have left due to being offended at some point and seeing no reprisal for the offender(s). On the other end of the spectrum, ex-members that board admin felt were too intolerant (or equivalently, too tolerant of bad intolerance) have been banned or run off, or else left because they felt the board was too censorious. After a long period of attrition, the only members we would expect to remain are those whose specific level of tolerance closely matches that of the most active moderator. And that's precisely what we observe. I propose we call it the "tolerance satellite effect". just the opposite, Virgil. my belief about intolerance of intolerance is SUBJECTED to my higher beliefs. this is actually the same for every poster on the board, so it should come as no surprise. and i not only gave you a clue about it, i explicitly stated how the distinction is made. if i believe that the intolerance results in harm to others, then i don't tolerate it. it is quite a simple standard. not capricious in any way. as for the dwindling, if true, then it proves my point even MORE, as the plurality of those present is even larger. finally, i am not responsible for your FEELINGS, and you are not responsible for mine. hurting your feelings does not meet the standard of harm to person or property. moreover, i have noted over the years that people tend to mask their own personal failures (ie, the inability to argue a point logically) in their FEELINGS to make it seem like the problem lies OUTSIDE THEMSELVES. in other words, many people have left here because they SAY their feelings were hurt. but i think it far more likely that they left because they were incapable of arguing constructively OR they were simply bored at the lack of constructive argument present. so, again, i think you are mistaking argument and disagreement for insult and abuse. they are quite different. if i destroy your argument with my argument, and that hurts your ego or feelings, i am not abusing you, except in your own internal world of feelings, for which YOU are responsible, not i. 1. My "piggybacking" point was precisely your SUBJECTED point. 2. A sample that has been filtered down to ridiculous extremes is not representative of any greater population. 3. See my response to Tall about FEELINGS. We agree, but I'm definitely not the one you should be worried about.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 26, 2015 10:17:08 GMT -5
just the opposite, Virgil. my belief about intolerance of intolerance is SUBJECTED to my higher beliefs. this is actually the same for every poster on the board, so it should come as no surprise. and i not only gave you a clue about it, i explicitly stated how the distinction is made. if i believe that the intolerance results in harm to others, then i don't tolerate it. it is quite a simple standard. not capricious in any way. as for the dwindling, if true, then it proves my point even MORE, as the plurality of those present is even larger. finally, i am not responsible for your FEELINGS, and you are not responsible for mine. hurting your feelings does not meet the standard of harm to person or property. moreover, i have noted over the years that people tend to mask their own personal failures (ie, the inability to argue a point logically) in their FEELINGS to make it seem like the problem lies OUTSIDE THEMSELVES. in other words, many people have left here because they SAY their feelings were hurt. but i think it far more likely that they left because they were incapable of arguing constructively OR they were simply bored at the lack of constructive argument present. so, again, i think you are mistaking argument and disagreement for insult and abuse. they are quite different. if i destroy your argument with my argument, and that hurts your ego or feelings, i am not abusing you, except in your own internal world of feelings, for which YOU are responsible, not i. 1. My "piggybacking" point was precisely your SUBJECTED point. 2. A sample that has been filtered down to ridiculous extremes is not representative of any greater population. 3. See my response to Tall about FEELINGS. We agree, but I'm definitely not the one you should be worried about. 1) good. then we understand each other. less important principles will be subjugated to ones of greater import. 2) perhaps. or perhaps the sample remaining is MORE representative in this respect. impossible to say. 3) no thanks. tall is a grownup, and can take care of himself. besides, tall is not the subject of this thread.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 26, 2015 10:23:50 GMT -5
2. I must have really been sleeping during all those statistics courses. 3. Tall is your spokesman. Consider Reply #428. I wish I had a spokesman. Of course, given the quality of your attempt over in the Pat Robertson thread, maybe not.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 26, 2015 10:26:31 GMT -5
A leader of a student organization refusing to attend such a seminar is committing "violence". That same individual who refuses to use what is offered in the seminar is not. (Maybe - just thought I would run it up the flagpole and see who chants USA, USA) You'll have to explain your reasoning behind the first sentence to me. ... At the same time, if Joe Conservative says to heck with entertaining their delusions and uses reality-centric pronouns, I don't want him dragged in front of the magistrates to answer for thoughtcrimes, which is exactly what's happening. If he knows he's not going to use what's offered in a seminar on thoughtcrime, I don't want him dragged in front of the magistrates for refusing the attend the seminar. ... First off, "Joe Conservative" is not who has been asked to attend, "leader of a campus organization" is who has been asked to attend. It is not an unreasonable request/require of people in such a position to attend seminars deemed beneficial to campus life. Secondly, how does he know what he will or will not do with information he has not yet received?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 26, 2015 10:29:46 GMT -5
2. I must have really been sleeping during all those statistics courses. 3. Tall is your spokesman. Consider Reply #428. I wish I had a spokesman. Of course, given the quality of your attempt over in the Pat Robertson thread, maybe not. 2) i wasn't talking statistics. i was not talking LIKELIHOOD. i was talking POSSIBILITY, NOT PROBABILITY. just because you have a small sample, it does not mean that it is NOT representative. if you missed that, then you were either sleeping, or you forgot. it is LESS LIKELY that this is the case, but it is still POSSIBLE that a small sample will produce MORE ACCURATE results than a large one. 3) i have no spokesman. when tall surmises what i might say, i always respond to confirm or deny it. always. ie post 431. i would be very surprised if you WISH you had a spokesman. you seem quite content blathering all day long about what you think.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 26, 2015 10:32:29 GMT -5
2. I must have really been sleeping during all those statistics courses. 3. Tall is your spokesman. Consider Reply #428. I wish I had a spokesman. Of course, given the quality of your attempt over in the Pat Robertson thread, maybe not. 2) i wasn't talking statistics. i was not talking LIKELIHOOD. i was talking POSSIBILITY, NOT PROBABILITY. just because you have a small sample, it does not mean that it is NOT representative. if you missed that, then you were either sleeping, or you forgot. it is LESS LIKELY that this is the case, but it is still POSSIBLE that a small sample will produce MORE ACCURATE results than a large one. 3) i have no spokesman. when tall surmises what i might say, i always respond to confirm or deny it. always. ie post 431. i would be very surprised if you WISH you had a spokesman. you seem quite content blathering all day long about what you think. In order: Ah. OK, fine. And takes one to know one.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 26, 2015 10:33:56 GMT -5
2) i wasn't talking statistics. i was not talking LIKELIHOOD. i was talking POSSIBILITY, NOT PROBABILITY. just because you have a small sample, it does not mean that it is NOT representative. if you missed that, then you were either sleeping, or you forgot. it is LESS LIKELY that this is the case, but it is still POSSIBLE that a small sample will produce MORE ACCURATE results than a large one. 3) i have no spokesman. when tall surmises what i might say, i always respond to confirm or deny it. always. ie post 431. i would be very surprised if you WISH you had a spokesman. you seem quite content blathering all day long about what you think. In order: Ah. OK, fine. And takes one to know one. no, you can know one fairly well without being one. but it certainly helps.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 26, 2015 10:49:13 GMT -5
You'll have to explain your reasoning behind the first sentence to me. ... At the same time, if Joe Conservative says to heck with entertaining their delusions and uses reality-centric pronouns, I don't want him dragged in front of the magistrates to answer for thoughtcrimes, which is exactly what's happening. If he knows he's not going to use what's offered in a seminar on thoughtcrime, I don't want him dragged in front of the magistrates for refusing the attend the seminar. ... First off, "Joe Conservative" is not who has been asked to attend, "leader of a campus organization" is who has been asked to attend. It is not an unreasonable request/require of people in such a position to attend seminars deemed beneficial to campus life. Secondly, how does he know what he will or will not do with information he has not yet received? It's reasonable to request/require that Joe Campus Organization Leader attend a seminar. Calling it "violence" if he doesn't comply on principle is not. Especially if he happens to be the leader of a conservative civil liberties campus organization. How does he know what he will or won't do with the seminar info until he gets it? How did I know what I would or wouldn't do with the info from the mandatory sexual harassment seminars I took in grad school (which were a waste of my time--except for one where the female lecturer accused Facebook users of being idiots and was actually quite entertaining)? I guess I'm just prescient.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 26, 2015 12:45:19 GMT -5
Free speech in Mississippi, an extremely conservative state: 2010 Mississippi Code TITLE 97 - CRIMES Chapter 29 - Crimes Against Public Morals and Decency. 97-29-47 - Profanity or drunkenness in public place. § 97-29-47. Profanity or drunkenness in public place. If any person shall profanely swear or curse, or use vulgar and indecent language, or be drunk in any public place, in the presence of two (2) or more persons, he shall, on conviction thereof, be fined not more than one hundred dollars ($100.00) or be imprisoned in the county jail not more than thirty (30) days or both. Sources: Codes, Hutchinson's 1848, ch. 64, art. 4(1); 1857, ch. 64, art. 340; 1871, § 2833; 1880, § 2974; 1892, § 1219; 1906, § 1295; Hemingway's 1917, § 1028; 1930, § 1059; 1942, § 2291; Laws, 1912, ch. 212; Laws, 1971, ch. 448, § 2, eff from and after passage (approved March 25, 1971). law.resource.org/pub/us/code/ms/ms.xml.2010/2010/title-97/29/97-29-47/index.html
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 26, 2015 13:44:58 GMT -5
Free speech in Mississippi, an extremely conservative state: 2010 Mississippi Code TITLE 97 - CRIMES Chapter 29 - Crimes Against Public Morals and Decency. 97-29-47 - Profanity or drunkenness in public place. § 97-29-47. Profanity or drunkenness in public place. If any person shall profanely swear or curse, or use vulgar and indecent language, or be drunk in any public place, in the presence of two (2) or more persons, he shall, on conviction thereof, be fined not more than one hundred dollars ($100.00) or be imprisoned in the county jail not more than thirty (30) days or both. Sources: Codes, Hutchinson's 1848, ch. 64, art. 4(1); 1857, ch. 64, art. 340; 1871, § 2833; 1880, § 2974; 1892, § 1219; 1906, § 1295; Hemingway's 1917, § 1028; 1930, § 1059; 1942, § 2291; Laws, 1912, ch. 212; Laws, 1971, ch. 448, § 2, eff from and after passage (approved March 25, 1971). law.resource.org/pub/us/code/ms/ms.xml.2010/2010/title-97/29/97-29-47/index.html i bet, on the whole, chapter 29 is a real hoot.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 26, 2015 15:10:35 GMT -5
"Profanity is the refuge of the man who lacks the eloquence to express his ideas or else the refinement needed to care." - Virgil S.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 26, 2015 15:17:00 GMT -5
"Profanity is the refuge of the man who lacks the eloquence to express his ideas or else the refinement needed to care." - Virgil S. Oh, stuff a sock in it. - bill
|
|
NoNamePerson
Distinguished Associate
Is There Anybody OUT There?
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 17:03:17 GMT -5
Posts: 25,755
Location: WITNESS PROTECTION
|
Post by NoNamePerson on Mar 26, 2015 15:43:07 GMT -5
"Profanity is the refuge of the man who lacks the eloquence to express his ideas or else the refinement needed to care." - Virgil S. Damn straight
|
|
Robert not Bobby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 29, 2013 17:45:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,392
|
Post by Robert not Bobby on Mar 26, 2015 15:53:34 GMT -5
I might not like what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it. Didn't that use to be a very patriotic saying? If the university gets government funding, how can it violate the constitutional rights of its students? I thought governments were not allowed to do that. from the article below, and a year later the court reaffirmed that “the mere dissemination of ideas—no matter how offensive to good taste—on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of conventions of decency.”www.newrepublic.com/article/121269/oklahoma-fraternity-racist-video-shouldnt-get-students-expelledIf it were a question of free speech or government can censor some speech it deems hateful, which side do you come down on? eta: Just to be clear, I am not asking if you approve of what was said. No one likes that kind of talk. I am asking if you approve of the right to say it or do you want government censoring it. My simple answer is yes. You cannot censor the speech you disagree with...that chokes a healthy Democracy and an exchange of opinions and ideas...however disagreeable and foul you might find them. One of the best ways to counter hate, is with a better and more compelling argument against it...not censorship.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 23:56:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 15:54:08 GMT -5
"Profanity is the refuge of the man who lacks the eloquence to express his ideas or else the refinement needed to care." - Virgil S. What the fuck does that horseshit mean? -Hickle
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 26, 2015 20:24:24 GMT -5
"The uninspired and incorrigible will always hasten to make your point for you." - Virgil S.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 26, 2015 22:40:41 GMT -5
"Profanity is the refuge of the man who lacks the eloquence to express his ideas or else the refinement needed to care." - Virgil S. "There are no bad words. Bad thoughts. Bad intentions, and wooooords.”
- Carlin
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 27, 2015 4:14:19 GMT -5
"George Carlin was an idiot." - Virgil S.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 27, 2015 13:32:58 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 27, 2015 15:46:13 GMT -5
"George Carlin was a crass, cynical gas bag whose popularity stemmed from his willingness to ventilate the cynicism, bitterness, and outright resentment harboured by his fans. He was the underclassman's Rush Limbaugh--a shameless, hyperbolic entertainer feeding on the anger and insecurities of a malcontent public, rising to a position of high esteem in the same arc as the controversial radio host.
"Unsurprisingly, Carlin's fans exhibit the same cultish devotion as the Limbaughian 'dittoheads', extolling Carlin's 'genius', reflexively quoting his most poignant works, and spreading his doctrines to the far reaches of the Internet like a fine veneer of excrement. Ironically it is these same fans who most vehemently deny the analogous roles of the two entertainers, blinded to the similitude by their affinity to Carlin's positions." - Virgil S. (A Message Boarder's Commentary on 20th Century Entertainers, pp. 208)
|
|
Robert not Bobby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 29, 2013 17:45:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,392
|
Post by Robert not Bobby on Mar 27, 2015 16:01:20 GMT -5
"George Carlin was a crass, cynical gas bag whose popularity stemmed from his willingness to ventilate the cynicism, bitterness, and outright resentment harboured by his fans. He was the underclassman's Rush Limbaugh--a shameless, hyperbolic entertainer feeding on the anger and insecurities of a malcontent public, rising to a position of high esteem in the same arc as the controversial radio host. "Unsurprisingly, Carlin's fans exhibit the same cultish devotion as the Limbaughian 'dittoheads', extolling Carlin's 'genius', reflexively quoting his most poignant works, and spreading his doctrines to the far reaches of the Internet like a fine veneer of excrement. Ironically it is these same fans who most vehemently deny the analogous roles of the two entertainers, blinded to the similitude by their affinity to Carlin's positions." - Virgil S. (A Message Boarder's Commentary on 20th Century Entertainers, pp. 208) You are still the same...almost always wrong and in love with big words (that is so high school). George Carlin wasn't a comedian, as much as he was a social commentator who got some laughs.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 23:56:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2015 16:12:04 GMT -5
George Carlin has been dead for a number of years. Be careful talking about him or you will get this thread moved out of current events just like you did the Robertson thread.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 27, 2015 16:12:13 GMT -5
1. You only think they're "big words". 2. Observe that I don't call Mr. Carlin a comedian at any point. Paul Blest, the author of DJ's fawning article, does. You should head over there and set him straight.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 27, 2015 16:15:24 GMT -5
George Carlin has been dead for a number of years. Be careful talking about him or you will get this thread moved out of current events just like you did the Robertson thread. That's not on me. I just happened to be the last person to post before mmhmm elected to move it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 23:56:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2015 16:18:41 GMT -5
George Carlin has been dead for a number of years. Be careful talking about him or you will get this thread moved out of current events just like you did the Robertson thread. That's not on me. I just happened to be the last person to post before mmhmm elected to move it. So you want this to be moved to the political forum.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 27, 2015 17:13:39 GMT -5
1. You only think they're "big words". 2. Observe that I don't call Mr. Carlin a comedian at any point. Paul Blest, the author of DJ's fawning article, does. You should head over there and set him straight. i would love it, for once, if you could deal with posters one on one instead of making it seem like we are all "siding up".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 27, 2015 17:15:23 GMT -5
"George Carlin was a crass, cynical gas bag whose popularity stemmed from his willingness to ventilate the cynicism, bitterness, and outright resentment harboured by his fans. He was the underclassman's Rush Limbaugh--a shameless, hyperbolic entertainer feeding on the anger and insecurities of a malcontent public, rising to a position of high esteem in the same arc as the controversial radio host. "Unsurprisingly, Carlin's fans exhibit the same cultish devotion as the Limbaughian 'dittoheads', extolling Carlin's 'genius', reflexively quoting his most poignant works, and spreading his doctrines to the far reaches of the Internet like a fine veneer of excrement. Ironically it is these same fans who most vehemently deny the analogous roles of the two entertainers, blinded to the similitude by their affinity to Carlin's positions." - Virgil S. (A Message Boarder's Commentary on 20th Century Entertainers, pp. 208) "By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth." George Carlin "We’re so self-important. So arrogant. Everybody’s going to save something now. Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save the snails. And the supreme arrogance? Save the planet! Are these people kidding? Save the planet? We don’t even know how to take care of ourselves; " George Carlin "So maybe it’s not the politicians who suck; maybe it’s something else. Like the public. That would be a nice realistic campaign slogan for somebody: “The public sucks. Elect me.” Put the blame where it belongs: on the people. Because if everything is really the fault of politicians, where are all the bright, honest, intelligent Americans who are ready to step in and replace them? Where are these people hiding? The truth is, we don’t have people like that. Everyone’s at the mall, scratching his balls and buying sneakers with lights in them. And complaining about the politicians." George Carlin "Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter. You see all, sooner or later. Sooner or later, the people in this country are gonna realize the government does not give a fuck about them! The government doesn’t care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety. It simply does not give a fuck about you! It’s interested in its own power. That’s the only thing. Keeping it and expanding it wherever possible." George Carlin "The things that matter in this country have been reduced in choice, there are two political parties, there are a handful insurance companies, there are six or seven information centers, but if you want a bagel there are 23 flavors. Because you have the illusion of choice." George Carlin "Those who dance are considered insane by those who cannot hear the music." George Carlin "Here’s all you have to know about men and women: women are crazy, men are stupid. And the main reason women are crazy is that men are stupid." George Carlin " If it’s true that our species is alone in the universe, then I’d have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little." George Carlin thoughtcatalog.com/nico-lang/2013/08/51-genius-quotes-that-prove-george-carlin-was-a-modern-philosopher/
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 27, 2015 17:58:22 GMT -5
1. You only think they're "big words". 2. Observe that I don't call Mr. Carlin a comedian at any point. Paul Blest, the author of DJ's fawning article, does. You should head over there and set him straight. i would love it, for once, if you could deal with posters one on one instead of making it seem like we are all "siding up". You presented the article. It's appropriate to cite it as "your" article. Notwithstanding that, my reasonable assumption was (and is) that you agree with Mr. Blest. "George Carlin was a crass, cynical gas bag whose popularity stemmed from his willingness to ventilate the cynicism, bitterness, and outright resentment harboured by his fans. He was the underclassman's Rush Limbaugh--a shameless, hyperbolic entertainer feeding on the anger and insecurities of a malcontent public, rising to a position of high esteem in the same arc as the controversial radio host. "Unsurprisingly, Carlin's fans exhibit the same cultish devotion as the Limbaughian 'dittoheads', extolling Carlin's 'genius', reflexively quoting his most poignant works, and spreading his doctrines to the far reaches of the Internet like a fine veneer of excrement. Ironically it is these same fans who most vehemently deny the analogous roles of the two entertainers, blinded to the similitude by their affinity to Carlin's positions." - Virgil S. (A Message Boarder's Commentary on 20th Century Entertainers, pp. 208) "By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth." George Carlin "We’re so self-important. So arrogant. Everybody’s going to save something now. Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save the snails. And the supreme arrogance? Save the planet! Are these people kidding? Save the planet? We don’t even know how to take care of ourselves; " George Carlin Language is a tool for communicating. To insinuate that its primary function is to conceal truth is absurdly cynical. As for the second quote: I suppose we should all screw saving the trees, saving the bees, saving the whales, and saving the planet, Mr. Carlin? Yes, some people take these ideals to a ridiculous extreme; yes, some people cause far more harm than good in their pursuit of these ideals; and yes, some people (*cough* IPCC *cough*) flirt with disaster in their hubristic plans to save the planet. But are you arguing that we should abandon these ideals? Is our arrogance so profound, these ideals so beyond our grasp, that the better option is to sit back and forgo any attempts at reforming ourselves? Where is the light in this well of cynicism? Even the doomsayers over at zerohedge (who, by the way, adore Mr. Carlin) aren't this cynical. Their mistrust and antipathy is limited mostly to the political/financial elite. Mr. Carlin apparently resented anyone who dared try saving a tree or a whale. Anyone thinking of saying, "Oh, you're taking him too seriously": I don't take him as seriously as his fans do. People believe in this man.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 27, 2015 18:10:20 GMT -5
i would love it, for once, if you could deal with posters one on one instead of making it seem like we are all "siding up". You presented the article. It's appropriate to cite it as "your" article. Notwithstanding that, my reasonable assumption was (and is) that you agree with Mr. Blest. "By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth." George Carlin "We’re so self-important. So arrogant. Everybody’s going to save something now. Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save the snails. And the supreme arrogance? Save the planet! Are these people kidding? Save the planet? We don’t even know how to take care of ourselves; " George Carlin Language is a tool for communicating. To insinuate that its primary function is to conceal truth is absurdly cynical. As for the second quote: I suppose we should all screw saving the trees, saving the bees, saving the whales, and saving the planet, Mr. Carlin? Yes, some people take these ideals to a ridiculous extreme; yes, some people cause far more harm than good in their pursuit of these ideals; and yes, some people (*cough* IPCC *cough*) flirt with disaster in their hubristic plans to save the planet. But are you arguing that we should abandon these ideals? Is our arrogance so profound, these ideals so beyond our grasp, that the better option is to sit back and forgo any attempts at reforming ourselves? Where is the light in this well of cynicism? Even the doomsayers over at zerohedge (who, by the way, adore Mr. Carlin) aren't this cynical. Their mistrust and antipathy is limited mostly to the political/financial elite. Mr. Carlin apparently resented anyone who dared try saving a tree or a whale. Anyone thinking of saying, "Oh, you're taking him too seriously": I don't take him as seriously as his fans do. People believe in this man. i don't agree with Mr Best so much as i disagree with you. Carlin doesn't meet the definition of idiot in any sense of the term. i am not going to comment on the rest of what you said, other than it appears you don't find cynicism funny. that makes sense, actually. you are one of the most cynical posters i have ever encountered: the US is collapsing into an inflationary black hole, etc.... sheesh. if ever there was a person that needed to lighten up, you need not call out Carlin, bro. edit: as to the second quote, i actually thought you would AGREE with it. silly me. but that is great. i don't agree with it, either. and with that rare moment of agreement, i think i will call it a day.
|
|