| Author | Message | ||
     Tonya "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Tonya Post Number: 7391 Registered: 07-2006 Rating: N/A |
 July 13, 2008 (The Politico) This story was written by Mike Allen. Barack Obama's campaign is condemning as “tasteless and offensive” a New Yorker magazine cover that depicts Obama in a turban, fist-bumping his gun-slinging wife. An American flag burns in their fireplace. The New Yorker says it's satire. It certainly will be candy for cable news. The Obama campaign quickly condemned the rendering. Spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree." McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds quickly e-mailed: “We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.” The issue, which goes on sale Monday, includes a long piece by Ryan Lizza about Obama’s start in Chicago politics. At a press availability Sunday afternoon in San Diego, Obama was asked, according to a transcript by Maria Gavrilovic of CBS News: “The upcoming issue of The New Yorker, the July 21 issue, has a picture of you, depicting you and your wife on the cover. “Have you seen it? If not, I can show it to you on my computer. It shows your wife Michelle with an Afro and an AK-47 and the two of you doing the fist bump with you in a sort of turban-type thing on top. I wondered if you’ve seen it or if you want to see it or if you have a response to it?” Obama, shrugging incredulously, replied: “I have no response to that.” The magazine explains at the start of its news release previewing the issue: “On the cover of the July 21, 2008, issue of The New Yorker, in ‘The Politics of Fear,’ artist Barry Blitt satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign.” Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post said Sunday on his CNN media show “Reliable Sources” that the cover is arguably “incendiary.” “I talked to the editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick, who tells me this is a satire, that they are making fun of all the rumors,” Kurtz added. Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune defended it as “quite within the normal realms of journalism,” adding that “it's just lampooning all the crazy ignorance out there.” The panelists agreed it would succeed in its goal of getting attention. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/14/politics/politico/main4257077.shtml | ||
| Abm "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Abm Post Number: 10148 Registered: 04-2004 Rating: N/A |
Gee? Wonder will the cover of the NEXT issue of The New Yorker 'jokingly' lampoon the angry, bellicose, economically ignorant, handicap wife-dumping and Bush-asskissing John McCain and his tax-dodging, drug & Botox addicted and never-done-a-gotdayam-honest-days-work-in-her-LIFE wife Cindy? Especially since, unlike with the The New Yorker’s current ridiculously fallacious (and perhaps even LIBELOUS) portrayal of the Obamas, all of the above concerning the McCains would be TRUE. | ||
| Chrishayden "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Chrishayden Post Number: 7171 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
I told y'all you need to get ready for this. This is just the beginning. It is not gonna stop. And it is NOTHING, not NOTHING compared to what everybody will feel free to do if he WINS. | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 12437 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
The ultra "sophisticated" New Yorker magaine has a long history of being the epitome of wry humor and biting satire. Their latest cover is an example of the double-edged editorializing they are known for. Obviously this publication has no qualms about using "poetic license" in order to sell more copies. This, too, shall pass.  | ||
| Tonya "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Tonya Post Number: 7396 Registered: 07-2006 Rating: N/A |
Chris, I am tempted to say it can't get no worse but I know you're right, it can. The New Yorker supposed to be liberal, damn! This ain't even the rednecks yet! | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 12439 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
How this cover is viewed is in the eyes of the beholder. It helps to have a sense of humor. It's really a lampoon. I don't think it will change anybody's mind about who they'll vote for. | ||
| Ntfs_encryption "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Ntfs_encryption Post Number: 3287 Registered: 10-2005 Rating: N/A |
"How this cover is viewed is in the eyes of the beholder. It helps to have a sense of humor. It's really a lampoon. I don't think it will change anybody's mind about who they'll vote for." Thank you Ms. Cynique. Your comments are accurate. Racism has nothing to do with the cover. A typical and unecssary cheap race baiting ploy. The cover was satirical humor. Barry Blitt (the artist) called it "The Politics of Fear", which is meant to satirize "the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Obama's campaign". It was his way of illustrating a point with a political lampoon of a caricature Obama's right-wing critics have been desperately trying to create. Barry Blitt is a satirist artist and has done other covers with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on a toilet reading a newspaper and Bush with a feather duster and an apron, while Cheney relaxes in a chair with beer and a cigar. Racism has nothing to do with his illustration of Obama. Anyone with a brain knows there is nothing right wing about the New Yorker (if this cover was on the National Review -yeah, I might consider it). Could the cover be construed as offensive? Yeah, I could see that. But that was not intent and cheap accusations of racism vice political satire is over the top. | ||
| Tonya "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Tonya Post Number: 7399 Registered: 07-2006 Rating: N/A |
 | ||
| Tonya "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Tonya Post Number: 7400 Registered: 07-2006 Rating: N/A |
Yeah, it prob'ly ain't enough to change anybody's vote however it gotta be offensive to Muslims and Black power folk...as if they would have anything to do with Lewinsky's old stomping ground, that sleazy brothel we call the oval office, or the cesspool of corruption that pervades the Whitehouse. Puleeze. | ||
| Ferociouskitty Veteran Poster Username: Ferociouskitty Post Number: 331 Registered: 02-2008 Rating: |
John McCain and his tax-dodging, drug & Botox addicted and never-done-a-gotdayam-honest-days-work-in-her-LIFE wife Cindy? You know, yesterday I read a heart-wrenching story about an abandoned baby born with a heart defect. John McCain and The White Witch were among the babies visitors *cough*PR stunt*cough. All the writer of the article could say about The White Witch is that she stared at the tubes providing life support to the child. That's it. She stared at the tubes. Maybe she was too frozen to exhibit any real emotion, also probably thinking about shopping. Anyhoo, about the cover it's incendiary as many have said, but my honest first reaction was that the artist was clowning all the ridiculous, much ado about nothing hoopla that's been put out to smear the Obamas. My second reaction: "Oh, my. People are going to go apeshit over this." | ||
| Ferociouskitty Veteran Poster Username: Ferociouskitty Post Number: 332 Registered: 02-2008 Rating: |
Wow...typos aplenty in that post, lol. *slinking away* | ||
| Ntfs_encryption "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Ntfs_encryption Post Number: 3289 Registered: 10-2005 Rating: N/A |
"Wow...typos aplenty in that post, lol. *slinking away*" Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! You too? Don't worry, I don't think many people are as bad as I am about this. When I looked back at the syntax and grammatical errors in my posts, I used to cringe and drop my head....shaking it with embarrassment. But since I'm too lazy to proof them, I just post and hope the readers are able to glean what I'm saying. Yeah, I'm bad...... | ||
| Troy AALBC .com Platinum Poster Username: Troy Post Number: 1436 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
I just posted an op-ed piece about this: http://reviews.aalbc.com/new_yorker_cover_depicts_obamas_as_terrorists.htm Sure this can be called satire. But it is racist - simple and plain. It would also be naive to believe that this cartoon will not have an adverse impact on the Obamas. I also do not believe for one moment that the negative impact was not examined. The editors simply did not care and perpahs even desired to hurt the campaign... The New Yorker, does not get a pass because they are a so called "left wing" publication. If Imus or Fox news was responsible people would be losing their G-D minds. There are other things to satarize, why this why now? Of course the answer is they are playing up on racist fears for money -- assuming the leadership is not altogether racist themelves! This is, at best, low class, crass and BETish of the the New Yorker. | ||
| Tonya "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Tonya Post Number: 7402 Registered: 07-2006 Rating: N/A |
 The Seattle Post-Intelligencer's cartoonist imagines the flipside of the New Yorker cover -- a National Review cover satirizing anti-McCain caricature. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0708/Another_magazine_cover.html | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 12447 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: |
Thanks for printing this. It puts things in perspective. Obama is not sacrosanct. He's running for president and this makes him fair game for political cartoonists. When he makes reference to blue collar whites clinging to their religion and guns, then he comes across as an elitist. The New Yorker is the creme de la creme of elitist erudite magazines. You have to acquire a taste for its sly wittiness. Humor is the great equalizer.  | ||
| Troy AALBC .com Platinum Poster Username: Troy Post Number: 1439 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
Cynique I read you post and because I respect your opinion and experience so much I figured I'd think about it over night... The WSJ had an editorial about the New York Cover which quoted the editor -- who said, in effect what you and Tonya has said. Apparently the New York did not HAVE to do a cover like this -- they have 1 million subscribers (I don't buy the arugument -- you always want more subscribers). The editor felt not using the cover because some ignorant people may take it the wrong was it elitist (look who is talking). It is not like I'm some prudish shrinking violet. I not that sensitive and I have a healthy sense of humor. I just don't think this cover was funny and is very weak satire -- for a magzine of that calibre. Plus if the Obama was Jewish I strongly doubt the enerable magazine would have him on the cover as some Jesus killing shylock -- satarizing the fears of the moral majority. (Tonya a faux National Review article is not analgous the the New Yorker Cover -- actually that is better satire but is funny because of the real New Yorker cover) Do you think The New Yorker would run the Jewish cover? If so we will just have to disagree. However if you believe they would not do it; then give me an explaintion why they would do it in this case of the Black Muslin man. | ||
| Tonya "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Tonya Post Number: 7423 Registered: 07-2006 Rating: N/A |
The message printed below is not mine, it's Ben Smith's from Politico. I should have said so instead of just posting the link my bad. Actually, I don't agree w/the rationale necessarily. Not sure if Ben Smith does either. I posted it b/c I thought it was a funny ass comeback and still do, lolol. And I called the New Yorker cover what it is, out-and-out racism, so I strongly agree w/you. Read my other posts, read my headline, I think it's racist as well. | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 12452 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
Well, is this cover worse than Jesse Jackson saying he'd like to cut Obama's nuts off because he talked down to black people? Actually, you have to read racism into the political satire of this cover. You'd have to assume that being portrayed as a Muslim or as a militant black woman are racial slurs. It seems to me that Obama people get upset about this cover because of how they think it looks to others. If they would just view it objectively, they could simply chuckle at how it tweaks the noses of Obama's hysterical detractors. IMO | ||
| Troy AALBC .com Platinum Poster Username: Troy Post Number: 1440 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
Tonya sorry about that -- when all the smart people are disagreeing with me I really start to examine my position. It may sound like I'm digging in here, but I'm trying to keep an open mind... Cynique, as you well know I'm an Obama supporter but more importantly I'm a supporter of Black people who are doing postive things -- Obama just happens to be one of the most famous. See they are "satarizing" Obama because of his name, religous, skin color -- things he can not control, this is weak satire. If they were trying to take a poke at "Obama's right-wing critics" as apparently stated -- this failed miserably. It is just a bad joke: along the lines of "nappy headed hoes" simply inappropriate like -- like mooning Grandma for a laugh -- it is just wrong. So this is where we have arrived, where nothing is wrong anymore. That said, can you answer the question I posed in the post before this one? | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 12454 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
Well, there's a difference between political satire and blatant racism. If they satirized Jews in a negative way, this could be anti-semitism. I still don't think the cover of the New Yorker is anti-black. What do you find offensive about the cartoon??Do you think satirizing Obama as a Muslim is an insult to Islam?? Is it an insult to him? If Obama actually was a Muslim, ideally this should not prevent him from running for the presidency in a democracy where one's religion shouldn't be important - unless of course you are a white bigot. | ||
| Abm "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Abm Post Number: 10159 Registered: 04-2004 Rating: N/A |
Troy, You think The New Yorker's lofty rep contributed to it arrogantly overestimating it's cultural gravitas via the Obama's magazine cover? | ||
| Ntfs_encryption "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Ntfs_encryption Post Number: 3310 Registered: 10-2005 Rating: |
"Sure this can be called satire. But it is racist - simple and plain." I don't think so. Troy, why racist as opposed to political? How do you personally distinguish the two? And exactly where is the racist attack? Because Obama is black? Is that the criteria for making it racist? If it were John Edwards and his wife in the cartoon -would it still be racist? "It would also be naive to believe that this cartoon will not have an adverse impact on the Obamas." I disagree. I'm sure something may exist but there is no evidence outside of you wanting to believe, that a lampooned cover on the New Yorker has done irreparable damage to Obama. Again: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO CLEARY DEMONSTRATE OBAMA HAS BEEN POLITCALLY HOBBLED BECAUSE OF A SATIRICAL COVER ON A MAGAZINE, ESPECIALLY AFTER THE MAGAZINES EDITORS AND THE ARITIST HIMSELF HAVE GONE ON RECORD, STATING IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, THE PURPOSE AND POINT OF THE COVER. And just exactly who are these people who are going to see the cover and say, "Oh my God! This is horrible! I've changed my mind. I'm going to vote against Obama now!" Is this what you sincerely believe...????? "I also do not believe for one moment that the negative impact was not examined. The editors simply did not care and perpahs even desired to hurt the campaign..." You would be hard pressed to prove this Troy. You're sounding like FOX Channel news. I have to admit, the hard leftists are just as bad as the hard right wingers. Obama is the sacred cow and no hard and honest questions or criticism of him will be tolerated....PERIOD! And if it does happen, it is purely race motivated -not political. Naw, I can't buy into it bro..... "The New Yorker, does not get a pass because they are a so called "left wing" publication. If Imus or Fox news was responsible people would be losing their G-D minds." And why is that? Because Fox news has shown a open contempt for Obama? No doubt. But since when has the New Yorker been in the business of carrying water and acting as political surrogates for the right? Where is your proof of such? Are you suggesting the New Yorker is run by white racists who are working openly to discredit Obama because -and only because he is black? "There are other things to satarize, why this why now?" Why not now? It's as good a time as any other. "Of course the answer is they are playing up on racist fears for money -- assuming the leadership is not altogether racist themelves!" Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! That's funny. Bro Troy, I have no idea how you are going to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt such a groundless accusation with well documented evidence and ongoing irrefutable examples. Good luck......... | ||
| Abm "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Abm Post Number: 10160 Registered: 04-2004 Rating: N/A |
Let's put the racism question aside for a moment and just consider the merits of what The New Yorker from a purely artistic standpoint. Perhaps I'm wrong. But I thought that part of what makes satire, lampooning and/or caricuture funny and engaging is that includes some hints or nuggets of TRUTH in them. But the ONLY thing in that cover that is humorishly truthful is the first bump. None of the rest of it is even remotely close to anything that really relates to Obamas. So it all comes off as just some fallaciously dumb and UNFUNNY joke. Had they made fun of Obama's ears and purplish lips and how he's singlehanded turned the word "Change" into a form of vomiting agent or how early in Barack's run Michelle appeared to henpeck him or Michelle being from Chicago South Side, THOSE might have actually been funny. | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 12457 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
The glaring truth in this satirical cover is that it depicts how panic stricken, ignorant white people view the Obamas. Discerning people can recognize this parody and laugh - not at Barak and Mischelle, but at people who take the images seriously. | ||
| Troy AALBC .com Platinum Poster Username: Troy Post Number: 1442 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: |
NTFS, "...prove beyond a shadow of a doubt., "...the New Yorker has done irreparable damage to Obama...", "... suggesting the New Yorker is run by white racists who are working openly to discredit Obama because -and only because he is black..." Dude, you do have a propensity for hyperbole. I can't, nor am I attempting, to "prove" anything. I'm giving you my opintion based upon my observations colored by my experience, reasoning ability and, admittedly, emotions. I think some blue colored white folks, perhaps with some kid in Iraq, who was sitting on the fence regarding Obama would look at this "joke" of a cover and find it more difficult to vote for Obama. I can see the good 'ole boys smoking cigarettes on the loading dock, having a good laugh about the cover -- a cover they probably would not otherwise seen where it not for the media attention the cover generated. I, just now, looked to see what others thought about the subject. It took me 30 seconds to find this quote: "...should assume that just because they're mocking such ridiculousness, the illustration won't feed into the same beast in emails and other media. It's a recruitment poster for the right-wing." --ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper This presumably is from someone who should know a lot more about the subject than I. Again this is not PROOF (I never suggested that I had it), and this does not mean, the Obama's campaign has suffered "irreparable damaged" (I never said that either). I just think it has had a negative impact. Interesting that you would demand that I prove beyond a shadow of a doubt -- but you offer no proof to the contrary yourself. As far as racism goes perhaps there are other, more appropirate words to describe The New Yorker's thought process, for arriving at the decision to publish that cover. However, none of them would be favorable. Racist is as good as any word right now... I could see if this was a cover of magazine like Screw Magazine. At the end of the day, the New Yorker MUST have known they were on the end fringe with this one; they rolled the dice and crapped out... | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 12469 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
Troy, your admission that: "I'm giving you my opintion based upon my observations colored by my experience, reasoning ability and, admittedly, emotions" says it all. This is a very insightful statement and is certainly what influences all of our reactions. This is the reason why certain white people will look at the cover that mirrors their fears and become bug-eyed. I'm curious. What do you feel when you look at the cover? When I look at it, I consider the source. This is the output of a magazine that takes risks and pokes fun at absurdity, and what is more absurd than the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim and his wife a gun-totin subversive. Of course my reaction is colored by my fascination with how irony impacts upon real life. | ||
| Disciple724 Regular Poster Username: Disciple724 Post Number: 15 Registered: 07-2008 Rating: N/A |
Hello everyone! My name is Joseph, and I am a new member of this board. Thanks to all that have made me feel welcome. Cynique, your comments yesterday concerning the length of my post was duly noted; so I will try to be brief and pointed. As a lifelong student of economics, I have become acutely aware of the inseparable natures between race, culture (including politics and religions), and economics. All these are "schools of thought" whose histories run long and deep. Also, their boundaries crisscross often, leaving us all with mixed opinions and emotions concern them. As a frequent reader (writing; not so much), I have found that some authors often become so familiar with words that they take their meanings for granted. Also overlooked, is the etymology (study of history and evolution a particular word), which often reveals deeper understandings to the nature. Add the equivocal nature of the English language-- one word having several different meanings depending on the context of the situation-- and it is easy to see how we sometimes become so fixated that our interpretation or definition is right, and in doing so, we quickly dismiss the other's point of view and the insight that might offer. Also problematic, we don't always chose the best words. My experience has been that seldom is any one perspective entirely right, but should be broadened to include the views of others. I guess, a good place to start would be: what constitutes "racism"; since it is evident that there are varied opinions here as to what this is. Next could be a deeper look in to the history and meaning of the word "satire". Maybe then we could come to a more universal understanding and resolve. As a student of language I am marveled by the deeper discoveries that I continue to make here. I have found that on the surface, few things are as they appear. Perhaps, that is why I tend to go on so long and deep. On that note, I'll close and wait for anyone's input. Thanks for your patience and pardons. | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 12476 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
Don't let me dictate or inhibit your self expression, Disciple. Say on. I am also taken with words and language. Mostly because they are inadequate at doing what they are assumed to do, which is to utilize syllables and symbols to capture and convey emotions and impressions. So much of Life is beyond words which is why the mystery of It can't be explained. | ||
| Disciple724 Regular Poster Username: Disciple724 Post Number: 18 Registered: 07-2008 Rating: N/A |
Cynique Posted on Sunday, July 20, 2008 - 02:09 pm: Don't let me dictate or inhibit your self expression, Disciple. Say on.</b> I am also taken with words and language. Mostly because they are inadequate at doing what they are assumed to do, which is to utilize syllables and symbols to capture and convey emotions and impressions. So much of Life is beyond words which is why the mystery of It can't be explained. Re: I am extremely comfortable with allowing you to "dictate"(express yourself ) because this will in no way inhibit my self expression; I am strong like that (ego?). Just making space for you in my life; that's all. I disagree with your assessments of words however; they can do all of that and much, much more. You simply mustn't settle for the shallow definitions of them; for their dynamic treasures are buried much more deeply. Let's dig. What definition(s) of "racism" have you accepted? | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 12479 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
Well the most deep seeded racism in the world can be conveyed with a silent look because, as I contend, words can be in adequate. Definitions are subjective, so that how one person defines something may not be the way another does. Standard definitions still tend to be more confining than defining. Racism has to do with its root word "race". But black people and white people define it differently. Along these lines. they say that it is very difficult to translate English into Chinese because there are certain English words that have no counterpart in Chinese. Thi is frequently the case with foreign languages. The word "dark" is also perceived differently among African Americans when it comes to skin color. What one persons calls "dark" another calls "medium brown". What one calls "yellow", another calls "light brown". And "black" isn't really "black" at all. It's all in the eye of the beholder, not in the words per se. | ||
| Disciple724 Regular Poster Username: Disciple724 Post Number: 21 Registered: 07-2008 Rating: N/A |
Okay! Here is my opinion and the facts on which they are based. According to the Webster's New World dictionary p1196 (a consensus reference source for English communications in the "New World" we presently live in) there are 3 primary groups definitions of the term race that pertain to the subject matter at hand; 2 nouns (things)and 1 verb (action). Let's focus on the nouns first and I will paraphrase to be brief. The first noun grouping focuses on genetics and in general defines race as any of the major biological divisions (3) of mankind based on physical characteristic generally accepted to be Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid ( there are several subdivision). This idea (thought process) of separating mankind based on genes is further by another idea or doctrine that states there is an order of superiority and inferiority amongst them (racialism) It probably springs from sexism . The next definition grouping of race is centered on the idea of a contest; which is a situation structured for two or more forces to contend against each other in an order to determine which is superior and which is inferior. The second is in a sense an experiment to prove the first definition. The last definition grouping describes circumstances in which participants act out on the second definition, literally carrying out the experiment. The irony is that this discovery yields to me is that most of us have been subtle participants in this racial experiment without even realizing it and in doing so are somewhat guilty of racism ourselves. Aren't we familiar with the light-skin dark-skin debate ( just got into it last night with Hen81), or the good-hair/ bad-hair bout. Now I know most of us do not "see" it this way, and I guess to a large extent we can always opt to redefine the word so that it suits our egos, but who are we kidding here. Still, if you apply the definition as it is set forth by an unbiased reference source, the shoe fits and most of us are Cinderellas. I invite you to check my work for errors, oversights and/or omissions and I welcome you feedback and all others are welcome to jump in. Next up: satire; Got your tools? let's dig | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 12481 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
Puleeze. What does all of that have to do with reality? In the real world, a lot of people consider racism to be when one group has enough power to subjugate and discriminate against another group, as is the case with whites and blacks in America. In this country, Blacks don't control the institutions which are the pillars of this nation so they don't have enough power to be racist; just prejudiced. | ||
| Carey Veteran Poster Username: Carey Post Number: 945 Registered: 05-2004 Rating: N/A |
Hold on there Mr. Wizard. I find what you have to say very interesting! You are in economics and it shows. It appears you do not give your opinion without verification or some form of logic and understanding to support such. I can assume your have a very analytical approach to MOST affairs/business/relationships/reading listening, in your life. A dangerous tool! People either love you are run from you? I will tell you that your have a willing listener in me. Now, don't think I won't bristle you or I am some kind of innocent groupie ( I know you don't). I am only saying that although your post are long and some may find them preachy I find them interesting. I like deep! But my good man, give me a little time to absorb your posts and give a little feedback so that I (and maybe others) can make sure we have "A" before I go to "B". Being an alumni of the board I can assure you that some may peek in and dismiss you but I know; I think you are not concerned with that. I feel you have aquired a dispisition and have the character to not place to much value on what others "THINK". You've been somewhere, I know that. Run on Mr. Wizard, ut oh, I think I've just given you a nickname. I hope you don't mind and if you do.......WELL  . Your spill is really not that hard to follow. Of course I am telling you that from my own perspective. When I read you I settle into a listening mood. I am not listening to give a reply hence my request that you slow your roll. With you I have to keep in mind that you write with a mission in mind. You constantly reference back to aforementioned statements which allows the reader to remain focused. It's sort of like looking in ones review mirror! Now don't let that big head of yours get to big because be forewarned that there are major wordsmiths running and lurking in Thumpers Corner. For me, as long as your post do not become pretentious (ego driven) and you are writng to make a solid point then I am cool. If the point/issue becomes subordinate to the overuse of adjectives and adverbs I am less proned to ride along. But then again, I am a nobody. I am a visitor just like you. Albeit an agitator but what would a washmachine be without an agitation cycle? | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 12482 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
I don't see you and I coming to a consenses on the subject of language, Disciple, because we approach it from different perspectives. As far as I'm concerned, things are what they are. If this was a silent world and language didn't exist all of the objects here would still exist, - all of the sentiments still be felt. I'm more philosophical than pedantic. | ||
| Carey Veteran Poster Username: Carey Post Number: 946 Registered: 05-2004 Rating: N/A |
.....Also Mr. Wizard, (I've been guilty of this)maybe you'd like to keep in mind that the thread has an opening topic and to wander to far away from that could be viewed as Highjacking the thread ( I am guilty). Just something to keep in mind. | ||
| Carey Veteran Poster Username: Carey Post Number: 947 Registered: 05-2004 Rating: N/A |
Cynical Cynique aside, I understand! Your pitch seems to revolve around the understanding of words. If individuals are not on the same plain then understanding could be imposible. Therefore and resulting in caos and confusion, which by the way is the goal of many. Hello Cyn-Cyn . | ||
| Disciple724 Regular Poster Username: Disciple724 Post Number: 23 Registered: 07-2008 Rating: N/A |
Cynique; Would you at least agree that the primary purpose of language is for two or more people to share ideas and or thoughts? | ||
| Disciple724 Regular Poster Username: Disciple724 Post Number: 24 Registered: 07-2008 Rating: N/A |
Carey, Language and words that form them are powerful tools that have a variety of uses and misuses. Some people use their language as an instrument to "prove" how intelligent that they are; as if by the mere use of the word the they have understanding. I consider this a misuse I assure you that that is not my intent here; I am as comfortable with my level of ignorance as I am with my level of intellect. Nor do seek to exalt myself. The most noble application of any language is to bind living souls in truth. It is a means of communicating clearly and in sync, but all members must observe the same set of rules. Now I didn't set the rules of the English language, I merely try to observe adhere to them simply so that we can collectively discover the truth and find peace. | ||
| Disciple724 Regular Poster Username: Disciple724 Post Number: 25 Registered: 07-2008 Rating: N/A |
"Puleeze. What does all of that have to do with reality? In the real world, a lot of people consider racism to be when one group has enough power to subjugate and discriminate against another group, as is the case with whites and blacks in America. In this country, Blacks don't control the institutions which are the pillars of this nation so they don't have enough power to be racist; just prejudiced" Cynique; If language ceased to exist, you and I would cease to exist. How could we exist without mathmatics; which the language that governs another language; our DNA. There is so much that you still don't understand because you hold so fast to your limited perspective. I am able to set mine down because I am familiar with it and can pick it back up at anytime I chose. Therfore I don't have to defend it to others, but I must reprove it always. 200 hundred years ago, many of the institutions that you refer to did not exist. But now they do because individuals ( humans like you and I and Carey) gathered themselves under a common goal or agenda. The communicated clearly and syncroniscally and built the reality that you and I both witness and are oppressed by today. Reality it is not static, it changes and is able to be changed yet again. We all have the power to change, yea improve. We fail simply because we refuse to come see things eye to eye. | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 12483 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
Geometry is the universal configuration and it doesn't speak, Disciple. Quantum physics defies explanations. On reason I am fascinated with Zen is because it deals with what is not said, - with the spaces between the lines, - with the pauses between the sounds. I did not say anything about institutions when I spoke of pre-existing things. I referred to objects found in their natural state. And, actually, there's nothing new under the sun. I am not anti-language. Of course communication is necessary and important. Yet it is also the source of misunderstanding. But continue to run on because your mind seems to be on a laxative. | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 12485 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
BTW, who are you a "disciple" of? Yourself??  | ||
| Disciple724 Regular Poster Username: Disciple724 Post Number: 27 Registered: 07-2008 Rating: N/A |
I did not say anything about institutions when I spoke of pre-existing things. I referred to objects found in their natural state. And, actually, there's nothing new under the sun. In the real world, a lot of people consider racism to be when one group has enough power to subjugate and discriminate against another group, as is the case with whites and blacks in America. In this country, Blacks don't control the institutions which are the pillars of this nation so they don't have enough power to be racist; just prejudiced" Re: Laxative? I'll take that as a compliment; Are not those your word thatI copied? What did you mean then when you said " In the real world" or when you used the term institution? Furthermore, just because " most people consider rascism" to be something does mean that it is that. If we are talking about opinions here, there is no resolution because these are not required to be based on truth or facts; no boundries as to where that can lead. Chaos. But knowledge (Wisdom) has both order and structure. Concerning quantum physics,speak for yourself some of us know it and can can explain quite well. But first the more simplier things. You ackowleged that geometry is a " universal cofiguration. Great! What does the word universal mean? and what does the word configuration mean? I'll take the first one and leave the latter to you; If you are up to the task. Universal: It is the union of the prefix uni-( meaning one) and the term verse ( meaning a sequence of words arranged metrically in accordance with some rule or design). it literally means "one word" that encompasses everthing. It points to the beginning of all Creation, and the perfect language and is the topic of study of every "University " on the face of the earth. If one could comprehend it; He would Know all things. As such and contrary to your statement, Geometry does speak; you just have to use an organ besides the ear to hear it. Geometry- the science (latin for knowledge) of the geos (Greek for earth) metrics( the theory of measurements). One of my favorites. (Carey, this drive to a previous discussed point) Consider this. If you stand at one vantage point on a given plane and I stand facing you at another vantage point on the same plane (say 10 ft between us) and suspended half way between us is a dual sided message board with instructions for untold wealth on each side. Half of the message is plainly visable to you; yet concealed from me and the other half is plainly visible to me; yet conceal from you. Provided neither of us is willing or able to move How can we each recieve the fullness of the message.? Communication! and to do that we must be able to speak the same language ( but not at the same time) and arrive at the same understanding. The words that you speak must convey the same understanding to me ; and vice versa. We must be on the same intellectual level (I consider everyone to be a least my intellectual equal), It also helps if we are not purposefully trying to dispute with one another, simply for the purpose of being contentious. | ||
| Disciple724 Regular Poster Username: Disciple724 Post Number: 28 Registered: 07-2008 Rating: N/A |
No, but I'm glad you asked! Christ. | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 12486 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
An institution is not an "object" that exists in a natural state. I used this word in the post about racism which was a different from the one in which I spoke of things existing in and of themselves. I repeat. We are on parallel planes. Why can't you accept that? Does it really matter whether we come to a meeting of the minds - unless of course you have a compulsion to convert folks to your way of thinking? Get over it. Sheeze! | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 12487 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
BTW, I don't think scientists have figured out all of the foibles of quantum physics. Can you explain the property of quantum physics which allows an entity to be in 2 different places at the same time? | ||
| Disciple724 Regular Poster Username: Disciple724 Post Number: 29 Registered: 07-2008 Rating: N/A |
First let's move to a separate place to be respectful of the point brrought up by Carey. | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 12493 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
Gee, I can hardly wait. |
