Let's put lilbuddha in charge

1235713

Comments

  • So I had to google that.
  • That seems accurate.
  • Frighteningly accurate.
  • fineline wrote: »
    Lilbuddha, you have been arguing strongly that intent isn’t relevant in racism - that a person can still be racist and harmful without being aware. So if a white person calls a black person a monkey, and then argues that they treat everyone the same and would also call a white person a monkey, and so it’s not the slightest bit racist, I imagine you (and plenty of others) would take issue with this. Maybe the person is aware of the racist implications, maybe they’re not, but they need to become aware, and to apologise.

    Didn't this happen recently, when Harry and Meghan's baby was born? Some comedian published a photo of a couple with a chimp in a suit. He claimed he was mocking posh people, and that he would have done the same for a white couple. On the whole he wasn't believed.

    It was Danny Baker. He’s tweeted ‘circus’ photos of royalty / upper class people for years. He’s ultra working class / anti-monarchist.

    I think on the whole he was believed, though. As soon as someone pointed out how the photo could be interpreted, he took it down. He was candid about how ashamed and what a horrendous thing he’d inadvertently done. Didn’t stop the BBC from sacking him, but I think they were grateful for the opportunity, as they’d been looking for an opportunity to get rid of him for a long time, as he’s quite a loose cannon.

    https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/10/danny-baker-royal-baby-chimpanzee-tweet-ex-bbc-presenter-reveals/
  • He should have stuck to lizards. It's a meme.
  • Didn't this happen recently, when Harry and Meghan's baby was born? Some comedian published a photo of a couple with a chimp in a suit. He claimed he was mocking posh people, and that he would have done the same for a white couple. On the whole he wasn't believed.

    Tangent here. I admit that I am pretty allergic to celebrity gossip (including the royals) and so avoid it like the plague. Still, this is the first time I've become aware that Meghan isn't considered to be white.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Didn't this happen recently, when Harry and Meghan's baby was born? Some comedian published a photo of a couple with a chimp in a suit. He claimed he was mocking posh people, and that he would have done the same for a white couple. On the whole he wasn't believed.

    Tangent here. I admit that I am pretty allergic to celebrity gossip (including the royals) and so avoid it like the plague. Still, this is the first time I've become aware that Meghan isn't considered to be white.

    Those of us who on a "know your enemy" basis keep an eye on the likes of the Daily Mail are well aware that she's considered too brown to be royal. I kid you not. Their more unhinged commentators have even talked in terms of "contaminating the bloodline".

    Being American and divorced is a minor failing compared with exceeding a particular quotient of melanin.

  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    fineline wrote: »
    Lilbuddha, you have been arguing strongly that intent isn’t relevant in racism - that a person can still be racist and harmful without being aware. So if a white person calls a black person a monkey, and then argues that they treat everyone the same and would also call a white person a monkey, and so it’s not the slightest bit racist, I imagine you (and plenty of others) would take issue with this. Maybe the person is aware of the racist implications, maybe they’re not, but they need to become aware, and to apologise.

    Didn't this happen recently, when Harry and Meghan's baby was born? Some comedian published a photo of a couple with a chimp in a suit. He claimed he was mocking posh people, and that he would have done the same for a white couple. On the whole he wasn't believed.

    Yes, that’s what I was thinking of, and why I gave that behaviour as an example, because it has been a recent thing. And there was also the view that even if he was genuinely unaware (which of course no one can know for certain), he shouldn’t be - that sort of ignorance is unacceptable and people need to be aware and sensitive to such things.

  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    I always knew Meghan had duel heritage. I just accepted it.
  • I was not aware that 'people' have stooped so low as to reference the purity of the blood. That's full on fascist. Oswin Mosley stuff. I trust MI5 have the racists under surveillance. Are they mainstream commentators?

    Incidentally, when my siblings and I were in the dating game, my mother was obsessed with finding out the medical history of our partners, and would ask them leading questions designed to elicit the information she sought. She wanted to breed out allergies and asthma.

    Lilbuddha strikes me as someone who is self-aware.
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    That seems accurate.

    I can certainly imagine Lb saying something like "whenever I see white people enjoying themselves I feel physically sick".
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited October 2019
    Hugal wrote: »
    I always knew Meghan had duel heritage. I just accepted it.

    So did I.

    And I suspect most people in Ukland did (apart from the swivel-eyed loons at the Daily Wail, et al, of course).

    BTW, I don't think I've come across the term 'dual heritage' before (I don't get out much these days!). Is it just me, or does anyone else find it a bit less pejorative than 'mixed race'?

  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    It is supposed to be the phrase we use now. The problem is we are all duel heritage, unless your mum was also your dad.
  • tclunetclune Shipmate
    BTW, I don't think I've come across the term 'dual heritage' before (I don't get out much these days!). Is it just me, or does anyone else find it a bit less pejorative than 'mixed race'?
    If by "less pejorative" you mean "obscure," I concur. What immediately sprang to my mind was, "It was the biggest mix-up that you have ever seen / my father he was Orange and my mother she was Green."
  • Surely "duel heritage" means they come from a family that settles disputes by pistol?
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Lilbuddha strikes me as someone who is self-aware.
    The trouble is she doesn't seem to be other-aware.
  • asherasher Shipmate
    'The evil fascist racist child-killing Nazi-loving scumbag dictators in our government need to stop using such inflammatory language.'

    Yeah, I can imagine Lilbudda giving this one....
  • asherasher Shipmate
    'Given that the criminal justice system was constructed by white males, it is physically impossible for women or people of colour to commit a crime.'

    ..it's addictive...
  • {Not referring to lilBuddha.}
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    So I had to google that.

    Just looked that up (thx for the link). Hadn't heard of Tatiana before. Followed a link there to her Twitter account. As long as I keep in mind that it's satire and supposed to be funny, it's funny.

    Wickedly, I'd really like to see Tatiana sit down with Dame Edna.
    ;)
  • edited October 2019
    Golden Key wrote: »

    Wickedly, I'd really like to see Tatiana sit down with Dame Edna.
    ;)

    I wasn't aware of Tatiana, but she seems like a recognisable type - though having grown up with more plebeian news sources, I had been wondering about posting a link to Millie Tant.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    Perhaps the common usage of 'spirituality' to mean putting candles around the bath hasn't helped, nor the common usage of religion to mean a strict straitjacket rather than a helpful way.

    Ah, I'm actually rather in favour of the candles-round-the-bath approach to spirituality. It's part of the reason I chose to live in Glastonbury.

    The trouble I have with most religions is the god element. I'm happier with spirituality that doesn't have a god.

    I don't blame you. Admit a god onto the stage--a real god, with wishes and actions and ideas of their own--and you've got trouble. Because they're apt to interfere with what you want. Better to stick with inanimate objects, or controllable forces.
    What real God? What interference? For every instance that the God of Abraham interfered, there are instances of Vishnu interfering. There is no more proof for the Christian God than there is animism and no less proof of animism than the Christian God.
    Believe one is correct and the others not, that is fine. As soon as one starts throwing around real and true, one is dealing with pride and not reality.

    I haven't a clue how you got--whatever you're arguing against--out of what I wrote. Read more carefully next time. The first HUGE clue should have been when I lowercased "god" twice, which should tell you I'm not putting forth some argument about which is the true God. The second clue should have been the common gender-neutral "their", used ungrammatically by a grammar purist(ish)--which again should have told you something, when "he/his/him" was so near at hand. Finally we get a true plural in the second-to-last sentence, and if nothing else, that should have told you that I was addressing the general class of objects known as gods, as opposed to whatever randomness you thought I was addressing.
    What I read may not have been what you intended, but it is a fairly reasonable inference.

    Dear god, is it so fucking hard to say "I'm sorry"?
  • lilbuddha’s infallibility precludes such lexical items.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Lilbuddha, sometimes I have defended you in this thread, but I totally agree with mousethief here. If you misunderstand something someone says, and especially if you hurl accusations at them based on your misunderstanding, and they then take the time to clarify what they meant, showing you the wording they used and why, then FFS, have the decency to simply acknowledge you misunderstood and apologise for any false accusations you made. Don't start playing tit for tat, twisting things, and defending your reading of their post, suggesting their post was ambiguous. That is really horrible behaviour, evading responsibility. It's also similar to what people do when they get called on saying something blatantly racist and they start defending why they said it, and how it's perfectly understandable. Thing is, they said it, and the decent thing is to apologise.

    Discussions are to communicate and engage with ideas, and often involve clarification to help communication, as misunderstanding happens often. Getting all petty and defensive about the fact you misunderstood, and not even bothering to engaging with the clarified meaning of what the person said, adds nothing to the discussion, and is very frustrating to be on the receiving end of.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited November 2019
    Golden Key wrote: »
    {Not referring to lilBuddha.}
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    So I had to google that.

    Just looked that up (thx for the link). Hadn't heard of Tatiana before. Followed a link there to her Twitter account. As long as I keep in mind that it's satire and supposed to be funny, it's funny.

    Wickedly, I'd really like to see Tatiana sit down with Dame Edna.
    ;)


    Dame Edna! Barry Humphries is arguably Australia's greatest living comedian, specialising in parody. His Sir Les Patterson, Cultural Attache to the Court of St James is an incisive pillory of the Australian Male, circa 1973. I hesitate to post a link. It is full of all the evils that are part and parcel of some parts of Australian society, including homophobia, sexism, racism, borderline sexual assault and definite harassment, etc etc etc. Sir Les is as ugly in his opinions and conduct as he is in his appearance and personal hygene. A you-tube search will get you a list of results. I recommend a 1985 Parkinson interview with Sir Les, Jackie Weaver and Barry Jones. Sir Les is so disgusting that they clearly edit the broadcast to only show the reaction of the guests and audience.

    I wonder why I don't post a link, when I have linked plenty of awful stuff in the past. I think it is because despite his appearance his horror is just too close to my reality at that time, by which I mean some of the older men around me at this time. He is a genius, and my reaction, my can't-look-away horror, while laughing too, is the proof.
  • fineline wrote: »
    Lilbuddha, sometimes I have defended you in this thread, but I totally agree with mousethief here. If you misunderstand something someone says, and especially if you hurl accusations at them based on your misunderstanding, and they then take the time to clarify what they meant, showing you the wording they used and why, then FFS, have the decency to simply acknowledge you misunderstood and apologise for any false accusations you made. Don't start playing tit for tat, twisting things, and defending your reading of their post, suggesting their post was ambiguous. That is really horrible behaviour, evading responsibility. It's also similar to what people do when they get called on saying something blatantly racist and they start defending why they said it, and how it's perfectly understandable. Thing is, they said it, and the decent thing is to apologise.

    Discussions are to communicate and engage with ideas, and often involve clarification to help communication, as misunderstanding happens often. Getting all petty and defensive about the fact you misunderstood, and not even bothering to engaging with the clarified meaning of what the person said, adds nothing to the discussion, and is very frustrating to be on the receiving end of.

    Wow! (Too personal for quotes file).
  • Anagram of lilbuddha: Dull id, bah.

    Coincidence?
  • Dimple-ass rio.
  • How'd you learn my gigolo name?
  • So... I... I lapsed, Mr...?
  • Your secret's safe with me
  • I spoiled arms.
  • Uh... cutesy
  • Today's lesson is: don't play childish games with other people's screen names. Especially if yours is so anagram-rich.
  • Cuts ye, uh?
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    So... I... I lapsed, Mr...?

    RIP Salome's id

  • I confess to totally missing that was an anagram, Sir P. But you get my point, albeit made unofficially.
  • When I play childish games in Purgatory, they tell me to take it to Hell. When I play childish games in Hell, admins contemn my honorable name. I am the most persecuted Ship of Fools poster in history. Sad!
  • It's part of our great unwritten constitution. Playing with screen names is off limits.
  • Unwritten constitution? Totally compromised kangaroo court!
  • The Ship is not a democracy :naughty:
  • Dear Mr. President Trump, I am a 6-year old helpless child suffering under the oppressive Ship of Fools regime. Please send the American air force to open a humanitarian corridor and support freedom. I just want the nightmare to end so I can play with my friends.
  • Atom gore, guys.
  • Dear Mr. President Trump, I am a 6-year old helpless child suffering under the oppressive Ship of Fools regime. Please send the American air force to open a humanitarian corridor and support freedom. I just want the nightmare to end so I can play with my friends.

    I want the "Not Worthy" smiley back!
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Eutychus wrote: »
    It's part of our great unwritten constitution. Playing with screen names is off limits.
    One has to wonder if a screen name of a character who was so bored that they fell out of a window and died might be a liiiiiittle bit biased about having stupid screen names messed with.
    When I play childish games in Hell, admins contemn my honorable name.
    On the plus side, your fuckstarded manner of posting just gets you picked on in Hell rather than Officially Sanctioned™.
  • A Feminine ForceA Feminine Force Shipmate
    edited November 2019
    oops wrong thread ...
  • Right, LB, do you enjoy making a fight out of nothing? 'Cause it sure as hell seems like it.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Dunno about fighting, but LB does seem always to want to stand absolutely and unassailably alone, in some minutely-delineated, precisely-marked-off, unique-to-her, stance in any argument. (And this despite her routine failure to provide evidence or links for most of her assertions. One would think that level of finicky-ness might be accompanied by concerns for supporting evidence; sadly, no.) Carving out a space in which to stand alone is her super-power. It seems she can only be "right" in her own eyes when creating a skin-tight niche with room for only one occupant--herself.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Nothing wrong with lilbuddha that wouldn't be cured by having the chip on her shoulder surgically removed...
  • Russ wrote: »
    Nothing wrong with lilbuddha that wouldn't be cured by having the chip on her shoulder surgically removed...

    So long as it's then shoved up you arse in place of your head.
  • If you say ten things, she will pick on the vocabulary of one and ride it into the ground, and completely ignore any further mention of the other 9. Tedious as a record with a skip. record with a skip. record with a skip. record with a skip.

    This came after about five points she could have discussed. After the twenty before them, of course.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    If lilbuddha's account were hacked and taken over by a middle-aged right-wing would-be satirist who thinks he can write funny parodies of SJWs, would anyone notice the difference?
This discussion has been closed.