I don’t always get online on the weekends, it’s what keeps me (mostly) sane, and I also spend a lot of time doing other stuff like getting my brand new dead PDA phone replaced and running errands. So I haven’t posted on the apparently hugely popular thread calling me out.
The short explanation regarding the subject at hand is that when I created the graphic, I was in a hurry (after all, I was in the middle of working on something for actual pay). As I built the graphic, I realized it needed text, because all context of the propagandist/astroturfing news story would be lost on most people. So I started adding text at the bottom.
First off, it had to be generic phrasing (as it needed to be understood to come from either the perspective of the Chinese government or the McCain campaign. It also couldn’t be an essay – it needed to fit, and be large enough on small versions of the graphic so that you could still read it. (Yes, I do graphics for a living.) I started having to truncate some of the incidental words just to make it fit on three lines. From there it just sort of evolved quickly, because it sounded like something you would see from the Chinese government.
Was writing the text in that way tasteless? In retrospect, perhaps, especially in light of the fact that it was really irrelevant to the point at hand, the true satire was comparing McCain (rightfully so) to the Chinese government. Was it racist? It wasn’t intended to be so, absolutely not, though I could see how someone could construe it that way. But it was and is intended as satire. What I regret the most that the language took away from the real satire, that of comparing a terrible, fascist government (not the people, but the government) with the sort of crap we keep seeing from McCain (and Bush). We have, for 7 years, been inundated with propaganda that may not quite rival that of the Chinese communist government, but certainly firmly heads in that direction, has lead us into a neverending war, and has impinged on our Constitution. The satire was intended to show this and nothing more. That was the real point, and because the vehicle for it was imperfect, it became a distraction.
Anyone who has ever read any posts I have ever done knows I am not racist, and am in fact quite race sensitive. I find the need to write a whole post about it a little excessive (as opposed to a comment in the relevant thread, or an email to me asking me to address it), but as someone who thinks that it is better to have a conversation out in the open than in the dark I’m not going to condemn anyone for doing so. However, this is the last I will say on the matter, because I have no more explanation than this, and if it doesn’t suffice, I can’t say anything more to appease anyone.
I am sorry this offended anyone, least of all anyone of Chinese or Asian decent. It was not the intention. The intention was to condemn both McCain and the Chinese government. I am also sorry that this would be used to beat BMG as a community over the head as a community embracing racism – which honestly, appears to be the main intention of making a whole post about it. (Said same post makes a lot of stupid assertions about me living in Lowell and “become[ing] desensitized to anti-Asian prejudice” – come on, don’t go using the “that’s what they say” brand of logic, if you want to make a point – a point, that, frankly, wasn’t a bad one, until you started the “Do you still beat your wife” line of reasoning.)
I would have been happy to address the issue without having my character impugned without just cause.
How could you ever be racist in any way?
forget the racist overtones – This is the REAL outrage.
<
p>Sen McCain deserves better than this and it is unpatriotic and pathetic to compare an American hero to the butchers of Beijing.
<
p>You deserve to be called out, not only for racism against the Chinese, but for a post that is completely out of touch and wrong.
McCain has no propagandist overtones. Neither does Bush. Sure, you can keep that head in the sand if you want.
<
p>Otherwise, learn the definition of satire.
All hail, then, John McCain!
We citizens greet you, glorious Senator!
We utterly condemn any comparisons between you, brave and patriotic Senator, and the hateful running dogs of the Chinese government.
Hail, Senator McCain! Long may you live and lead us!
Yes, we’ve all heard their clumsy English, but that’s not an excuse to mock them.
I don’t know if you personally have been guilty of this, but our side gets called Communist all the time. We’re also used to being called unpatriotic for criticizing your side, so that’s par for the course I guess.
since 9/11 the left has been trying to tear down the meaning of patriotism and create a more secular and socialist society.
<
p>The vitriol from the left has led rational people to think that the US is hated around the world, that we are warmongering criminals and that the most liberal senator in the USA is qualified to be president.
<
p>and then comparing McCain to the butchers of Beijing.
<
p>
before you labeled ‘the Left’ (as if it was a monolith) in this country ‘socialist.
<
p>Obama is hardly the most liberal senator in the US. That honor would fall to Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
<
p>The reason that the US is thought of as a warmongering nation has nothing to do with the Left, but the policies of the Bush administration.
<
p>Nice ad hominem, BTW. Liberals are communist and unpatriotic. :rolls eyes:
I suspect that alleged person (bot?) to whom you are responding does not actually understand the meaning of the words he/she is using.
<
p>He or she has been pre-programmed as it were.
<
p>To be more charitable: this is the moral witness approach to blogging. One states the truth. One doesn’t need to back it. One doesn’t need to be nice about it. One just states it. Arguing against people taking that approach (by trying to define actual, you know, words, like communist, socialist, liberal, patriotic, etc.) is fruitless. They are not here to argue. They are here to bear witness.
<
p>After they have stated the truth to you, they can go on with the other activities of their day having done a good deed.
You read way too much into it. She is just stating truisms about the left. Everybody knows it. Just like you are a true believer and think whatever you say is rational and moral – someone out there is laughing….
You’re just repeating my third paragraph.
<
p>Now I am laughing.
YOu are far superior to me in intellect and reasoning.
in a discussion. she’s a troll.
<
p>I just hate to see kind posters waste their valuable time.
Can you provide a link?
<
p>Probably a code pink link.
<
p>The Bush policy is warmongering?
<
p>Are you serious? Do you remember John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats voting to go to war in Iraq?
<
p>Have you seen the videos of Kurds being thrown off buildings or having their tongues pulled out or fingers cut off or women raped and babies gassed????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
<
p>You, are a moonbat
You addressed Regular Joe’s comments head on in a sensible and mature why that showed a geniune degree of reexamination about the posting and real context as to you state of mind. Unlike some others who dismissed or evaded the issues brought up, you handled this quite well.
now lets move on.
Never!
We all know you aren’t in the business of moving on. Ever. Else, you’d have divorced yourself from this community a long time ago.
I appreciate your efforts, but you’re wasting your time. If RegularJoe really cared if you were racist or not, he would have asked you about the intentions of your post from the start, instead of going on and on about how you’re racist and calling your soul into question well after people said he had misinterpreted the poster and that you were most certainly NOT racist. His post was a pure character assassination attempt, but luckily I think it mostly missed and instead assassinated any character and reputation he ever would have had on this site.
<
p>This, of course, is why we call blogs a meritocracy.
I never called Lynne a racist but I did state that the post was racist. You either know this is true because you read the diary or you did not read the diary. Either way you are being disingenuous and fraudulent. What a maroon!
like your calling lynne “lynne dice clay”, you rip the rug of righteousness right out from under yourself by using direct personal attacks. although i disagreed with the reasoning in your diary, i did have some respect for your willingness to explore the subject of racism. not so much any more. i think ryan may be on to something with his comment. time, and further posting by you, will tell.
You didn’t explicitly call Lynne a racist. You just ‘question her soul.’ You don’t know her at all, yet you’re confident that what she said was racist – which, as Lightiris has frequently corrected you on, implies intent and a history of similar behavior. Lynne neither had intent nor that all-important history.
<
p>As I said here,
<
p>
<
p>You just assumed what she said was racist. Instead of asking her about it, you wrote an entire diary on the subject with the intention of assassinating Lynne’s character. When people corrected you on your many incorrect assumptions, innuendo, misinterpretations and then vogued for Lynne’s character – your ignored them, and kept on trucking with your Lynne-is-racist narrative. Just because you didn’t implicitly say that Lynne is racist doesn’t mean that it wasn’t an implication in many of your posts, especially those in which you questioned her ‘soul.’
<
p>If anyone here is a fraud, it’s you. You make the bed you lie in.
you know what is in someone’s “soul” and I don’t. I try and figure it out by reading what one writes or seeing what one does. I have stated several times that I don’t know what is in Lynne’s soul but I think she’s a good person. I think, in her attempt at humor, that she wrote something that she should not have written.
<
p>When the Marzilli crisis was brewing, both you and Laurel rushed to Marzilli”s defense. Victims be damned. You, of course, had the benefit of knowing what was in his soul. All I had were his actions and words. That is why I stupidly sided with the alleged victims and you sided with poor Senator Marzilli.
<
p>You seem to be a nice person with a lot of good ideas but you either seem to ignore what you don’t want to hear or you attack the proponent of that alien idea. Let’s talk this thing out.
if you actually read what i wrote about marzilli, you will not find one mention of “soul”. what you will find is my puzzlement over his odd behavior, and wondering whether he was dealing with mental illness.
<
p>if you’re going to pick on me, do us all the favor of a) linking to specific posts to make your point (but you can’t, because there aren’t any), and b) actually read them first.
because I got the distinct impression that you were a Marzilli apologist until the evidence became overwhelming.
and define apologist, please.
I did not reread the post in which you and I went back and forth about Marzilli. I will see if I can find it to refresh my recollection. I thought you were excusing his behavior, that is what I meant by “apologist”. I felt that you were trying to protect him.
and yet you got a “distinct impression” about where i stood on that issue? lolz! just keep digging your hole deeper.
The fact is, Ryan, Laurel, Marzilli, and Lynne are perfect, unimpeachable people, so just give up. Even if they do something regrettable, it is because they were “in a hurry”, had a medical problem, ran out of space, or something like that. Just accept it as the fact that it is.
the egg-and-sperm guy, now known as “they,” has his back. That now brings your support to a grand total of three: they, Pater Familias and Ernie Boch. That’s some great company, indeed.
EBIII is God, so yeah.
then you’re absolutely right.
has gotten you in a lot of trouble lately, hasn’t it. Maybe you should – oh, I don’t know – STOP DOING THAT.
<
p>Again, for the millionth time, maybe you should ASK PEOPLE what they think before deciding what they think for them. It’s a good policy.
When it comes to Lynne’s soul, yes. I do. You’ve said COUNTLESS times that you don’t know Lynne. I do.
<
p>
<
p>I try to figure it out by actually meeting people and asking them about their intentions. Learning about someone is a far better insight to their soul than taking a post out of context and running with it. A simple email or comment under Lynne’s post would have cleared this whole thing up with far less effort, in a fairer way, without an attempt at assassinating Lynne’s character.
<
p>Huh?
<
p>Enlighten me. What’s the point in questioning someone’s soul if you think “she’s a good person.” We don’t need any concern trolling here, thank you very much.
<
p>
<
p>LOL No. I didn’t. I said that he should step down. Immediately. I also said that there was quite possibly something that was mentally and physically wrong with him – turns out he had bipolar disorder. That does not excuse what he did and does not mean I was “defending” him, or his actions. Either way – if there was something mentally wrong with him or if he was perfectly sane (unlikely considering his actions), he’s going to spend time behind bars. The only difference is in one scenario he’ll receive treatment, and the other he’ll be a danger to both himself and others, while never getting treatment in case he’s ever out again (which is probably likely).
<
p>
<
p>No, I didn’t. You can’t know someone’s soul without actually knowing them. I only knew that he was a danger to society – and that’s what mattered most. Hence why I didn’t support him staying in office – and why I thought he needed to receive treatment while contained from society.
<
p>
<
p>Clearly, you needed to read more of my posts… and learn more about my soul… before you condemn me and impinge on my character. Maybe if you asked me about MY thoughts on Marzilli, you wouldn’t have been so thoroughly owned here. But leveling accusations without any evidence or foresight is your best weapon, so I’ll make a mental note of it for the future.
<
p>
<
p>No, you have it wrong. I defend against those who would verbally attack my friends and fellow posters on BMG, without any reason or foresight. If there’s reason to criticize them, I’m even willing to do it myself – in fact, I’ve done it many times. But this stuff you’re spouting is just ridiculous.
<
p>
<
p>With backflips like that, you should be in Beijing right now.
isn’t exactly kosher, Joe. But even in this case, there’s at least some context – even if it’s minimal at best – when I said “explicitly.” From the bevy of comments I’ve made on this subject, it’s obvious that I think RegularJoe was implying that Lynne has a problem with racism, without being willing to truly stick his neck out and say it up front. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be so many posts where RegularJoe wonders about Lynne’s “soul.”
<
p>Leveling such charges is quite serious, even when they’re just implications. The least he could have done – as I’ve said over and over again – was either email Lynne or even reply to Lynne’s original post asking for more information, without turning it into a full-blown post leveling serious accusations at her without the slightest of background information.
<
p>In any event, if you were trying to find hypocrisy in my writing, you failed in this attempt. I’m sure there are other examples out there, but not this time.
I did not mean to imply that you were a racist but many of your fellow BMGers have inferred that I did just that. I apologize for creating that impression. I did take strong exception to your post and all of its rave ratings by other BMG folks. I will not beat this horse any further. I appreciate your explanation. Sorry for all the hubbub.
Let me quote you. Reread what you posted. Then tell me if that impression wasn’t warranted by myself and by all the commenters on the thread.
<
p>
<
p>”I don’t know if Obama is a Muslim or not, but the fact that he lived in Indonesia as a child demonstrates to me that he might just be.”
<
p>”I don’t know if blue eyes means that person has a disease or not, but the fact that blue eyed people often have diseases demonstrates that could be the case.”
<
p>Tell me again how that is to be interpreted?
<
p>Somehow the graphic I posted hit a nerve with you. You overreacted. Now, I think you had some good points to make – not necessarily the one you made, however. You fell just short of making the point that could have been made, when you started claiming racism.
<
p>Then, the fact that it didn’t hit a nerve with anyone else made you call them tolerant of racism. (As your title represents: “Racism is alive and well and living on this blog.”) You wanted to paint everyone with that brush.
<
p>You were misguided and seemed to me, a bit oversensitive. That said, there was a point and a discussion to be had, a very interesting one. You however, were not on the mark with the way you presented yours. If you had, it would have been an extremely interesting and very cordial debate. Instead, you have shown you are more than willing to ignore the evidence of your experience and the facts laid before you in order to hurt other people. That’s fine, and I accept your apology as well, but I would prefer instead that you actually learned something from this whole thing and didn’t do this to anyone again.
<
p>I know I learned some things, and I’m not remotely claiming none of the blame. However, I hope you see where you need to claim some as well. Both in the execution of the critique, and in the fact you felt you had to make it in the first place. It was rather overdramatic.
I’m sorry I made numerous, baseless attacks on you without ever trying to clear up the divorce between my interpretations of your post and your’s, along with almost everyone else’s. I did take strong exception to your post and all of its rave ratings by other BMG folks, even though I completely misunderstood it and countlessly ignored all the people who tried to fill me in. I will not beat this dead horse any longer, because I’ve thoroughly made a fool out of myself. I appreciate your explanation and, instead of writing a diary without it, I should have asked what you meant up front, before I started all of this hubbub.
Let him make amends. In this land of typing, all we have are apologies.
if that’s what we can call it, lacking.
<
p>As soon as he says, “Sorry, I should have asked Lynne what she meant first,” I’ll stop with the snark.
He has not apologized for deliberately misrepresenting me, nor has he apologized for calling Ryan a fraud etc.