jezzmo
Now lactating. Sample me.
The rant at the bottom of this post is an addendum and written separately in response to a facebook post that criticised a childrens cartoon for racial profiling. But the blunt angle of my vent and inquiry way up here is moreso inspired from enduring a fair gang of feminist-themed posts recently- and these words are funded by the sleep deprived, distraction-based outrage I own and loathe to see in all other hypocrites and torres strait islanders.
I find myself increasingly jaded by the common tendency for simple, innocuous statements to be tainted and transformed into something more sinister by any critic with an identity agenda on the tip of their enthusiastic outrage. An anecdote that refers to a woman in a feminine way, (or the failsafe: an anecdote with an absence of women in the details) - can be effortlessly construed into an attack on or neglect of half the gen pop. It is seemingly futile to defend any accusation of this kind. With your values and moral deviance on trial, any retort you deliver is unreliable and crass.
[Situational Update]
**That fickle flashmob gathered outside of your perceptual range has sensed that unrepenting faux pas you just spilled. They have stopped sexting nubiles just to glare at you rapingly with a mindspace full of contempt fuelled by the now universally accepted and immutable judgement of your character. To kick the gimp while he's down, your family's reputation has been tarnished and a football club of your namesake reports lower attendance figures and unfortunate weather this season. **
Kangaroo court will always rule against your kind. Reason is trumped by the passionate cries of the delusionally persecuted.
On the flip, I don't encounter a great deal of obvious trait discrimination in any of my daily encounters and as such, I fail to observe any significant harm to a pokeable-person-beyond-the-concept when I satirise callously with reference to any and all minorities. I rule that verbal attacks are fair game to anything that can be called at with a word to noose its essence. Here I am talking about statements that ARE intended to direct attention to and make assumptions about a common trait, for purposes of kudos, joke or criticism. In this case, to offend the loner is a little more expected and allowed for and encouraging ; but no physical, non-trivially emotional or institutionalised harms are intended (tact and discretion apply). This goes beyond my initial argument, and is a little more murky but, with the exception of sooky amputees and frigid nuns - I argue that the existence of any significant tangible effects are in question here if the purpose and outcome of your words do not carry and subvert a persons social standing without merit or relevance in the situational context you find yourself rambling in. Without hurt, there is no crime. No compensation or pity hugs awarded.
Anywho - so you real people out there, removed from the comfort of the philosophers chair. You arrived on a boat or maybe your nose is stingy and your wallet is long. You had to take a second mortgage to plug your enthusiastic menstrual flow and demanded additional assistance from Medicare but all you got was an unsympathetic Sydney Swans scarf. Or maybe you're just a bit of an autistic cunt, raging inappropriately at the unsual question marks to vowel ratio going on at the moment. This contemplative, heartless nutjob wants to hear anger and tears (alternatively, smugly bathing in the absence of any emotion is more than welcome). Those of you who feel legit persecuted in some way, (whether in your broken mind or in a viable reality we can set pragmatic laws and customs to), stop being weak and trampled on like the genetic deadend of the full-time victim you would have accepted that you are by now if we stopped putting so much sugar on all your feel-good cupcakes. Speak up against this.
The cards are out. Purgatory is off the table. Speak, offend, be offended. Is political correctness going to improve the daily grind in your squatters den? Is it wrong to cast a glum jobless shadow where a winning white light reflects the consensus? If that consensus is way off beam, or perpetuates itself - do we have a duty to provide anomalies and shake up the sleeping prejudices - to throw a spanner into the unthinking motion of naive american indian stereotyping? Is my neglect to capitalise "indian" reflective of an insidious indifference to the race or does it call into scrutiny my primitive proofreading skills, courtesy of a lower class education and early-onset gambling addiction? Can I decide that or do you? Or is it enough to stop at good intentions and a genuine attempt to reserve all prejudice in our actions and individual compassion - allowing for the sloppy adjective and familiar caricature here and there to get the one-dimensional disney story out to the world, with more accessibility and less irrelevant friction to the fiction. [Solid word play- with a lapse of conviction! Bro, 'dis hebrew nigga got rhyme and dope diction.]
---------------
If you have a hundred circles and a hundred squares drawn by Polish children with poorly developed hand-eye coordination, and only a brief moment to describe and distinguish them - a reasonable but flawed noncelestial being might have them called circles and squares and describe their collective traits accordingly, even if no single instance is an exact form of, and cared for intimately by, the single word definition you assign it. A value judgement should not be assumed, or prejudice necessarily inferred to criticise the process of induction - even if you have misgivings about round objects; a circle stole your candy when you were a loopy ankle-biter, perhaps? (Did it have any edges? The good old days are a bit hazy but you're pretty sure it was all curve. Squares aren't the klepto type). I would make no objection to a jazz-tooting negro calling me that white guy if I am the only honky conversing with a group of naturally Mumbai born convenience store employees. If it's a 50/50 mix, narrow down the traits - that fat, balding white guy with the attitude might return a more functional search result. Discrimination is efficient - it is crude and inaccurate and littered with prejudice but it is very much necessary. A cartoon made for children should keep its themes simple to get the point across. Black and white is simple. I think it's fair to assume it won't take much life experience for most of us to conclude that not all black people have sorcerous tendencies - the inability to learn as much is moreso a cognitive limitation than a product of television. But perhaps we do need more ill-fitted wheelchair bound, suit wearing, white sorcerors with bad table manners yet outstanding archery skills from New York in our viewing schedule - if only to keep our generalisations alert to ongoing scrutiny, ensuring we treat each stranger we meet with our best attempt at the no-assumption policy. If I could summarise without omission- this entire argument with a single keystroke of punctuation, I will,
I find myself increasingly jaded by the common tendency for simple, innocuous statements to be tainted and transformed into something more sinister by any critic with an identity agenda on the tip of their enthusiastic outrage. An anecdote that refers to a woman in a feminine way, (or the failsafe: an anecdote with an absence of women in the details) - can be effortlessly construed into an attack on or neglect of half the gen pop. It is seemingly futile to defend any accusation of this kind. With your values and moral deviance on trial, any retort you deliver is unreliable and crass.
[Situational Update]
**That fickle flashmob gathered outside of your perceptual range has sensed that unrepenting faux pas you just spilled. They have stopped sexting nubiles just to glare at you rapingly with a mindspace full of contempt fuelled by the now universally accepted and immutable judgement of your character. To kick the gimp while he's down, your family's reputation has been tarnished and a football club of your namesake reports lower attendance figures and unfortunate weather this season. **
Kangaroo court will always rule against your kind. Reason is trumped by the passionate cries of the delusionally persecuted.
On the flip, I don't encounter a great deal of obvious trait discrimination in any of my daily encounters and as such, I fail to observe any significant harm to a pokeable-person-beyond-the-concept when I satirise callously with reference to any and all minorities. I rule that verbal attacks are fair game to anything that can be called at with a word to noose its essence. Here I am talking about statements that ARE intended to direct attention to and make assumptions about a common trait, for purposes of kudos, joke or criticism. In this case, to offend the loner is a little more expected and allowed for and encouraging ; but no physical, non-trivially emotional or institutionalised harms are intended (tact and discretion apply). This goes beyond my initial argument, and is a little more murky but, with the exception of sooky amputees and frigid nuns - I argue that the existence of any significant tangible effects are in question here if the purpose and outcome of your words do not carry and subvert a persons social standing without merit or relevance in the situational context you find yourself rambling in. Without hurt, there is no crime. No compensation or pity hugs awarded.
Anywho - so you real people out there, removed from the comfort of the philosophers chair. You arrived on a boat or maybe your nose is stingy and your wallet is long. You had to take a second mortgage to plug your enthusiastic menstrual flow and demanded additional assistance from Medicare but all you got was an unsympathetic Sydney Swans scarf. Or maybe you're just a bit of an autistic cunt, raging inappropriately at the unsual question marks to vowel ratio going on at the moment. This contemplative, heartless nutjob wants to hear anger and tears (alternatively, smugly bathing in the absence of any emotion is more than welcome). Those of you who feel legit persecuted in some way, (whether in your broken mind or in a viable reality we can set pragmatic laws and customs to), stop being weak and trampled on like the genetic deadend of the full-time victim you would have accepted that you are by now if we stopped putting so much sugar on all your feel-good cupcakes. Speak up against this.
The cards are out. Purgatory is off the table. Speak, offend, be offended. Is political correctness going to improve the daily grind in your squatters den? Is it wrong to cast a glum jobless shadow where a winning white light reflects the consensus? If that consensus is way off beam, or perpetuates itself - do we have a duty to provide anomalies and shake up the sleeping prejudices - to throw a spanner into the unthinking motion of naive american indian stereotyping? Is my neglect to capitalise "indian" reflective of an insidious indifference to the race or does it call into scrutiny my primitive proofreading skills, courtesy of a lower class education and early-onset gambling addiction? Can I decide that or do you? Or is it enough to stop at good intentions and a genuine attempt to reserve all prejudice in our actions and individual compassion - allowing for the sloppy adjective and familiar caricature here and there to get the one-dimensional disney story out to the world, with more accessibility and less irrelevant friction to the fiction. [Solid word play- with a lapse of conviction! Bro, 'dis hebrew nigga got rhyme and dope diction.]
---------------
If you have a hundred circles and a hundred squares drawn by Polish children with poorly developed hand-eye coordination, and only a brief moment to describe and distinguish them - a reasonable but flawed noncelestial being might have them called circles and squares and describe their collective traits accordingly, even if no single instance is an exact form of, and cared for intimately by, the single word definition you assign it. A value judgement should not be assumed, or prejudice necessarily inferred to criticise the process of induction - even if you have misgivings about round objects; a circle stole your candy when you were a loopy ankle-biter, perhaps? (Did it have any edges? The good old days are a bit hazy but you're pretty sure it was all curve. Squares aren't the klepto type). I would make no objection to a jazz-tooting negro calling me that white guy if I am the only honky conversing with a group of naturally Mumbai born convenience store employees. If it's a 50/50 mix, narrow down the traits - that fat, balding white guy with the attitude might return a more functional search result. Discrimination is efficient - it is crude and inaccurate and littered with prejudice but it is very much necessary. A cartoon made for children should keep its themes simple to get the point across. Black and white is simple. I think it's fair to assume it won't take much life experience for most of us to conclude that not all black people have sorcerous tendencies - the inability to learn as much is moreso a cognitive limitation than a product of television. But perhaps we do need more ill-fitted wheelchair bound, suit wearing, white sorcerors with bad table manners yet outstanding archery skills from New York in our viewing schedule - if only to keep our generalisations alert to ongoing scrutiny, ensuring we treat each stranger we meet with our best attempt at the no-assumption policy. If I could summarise without omission- this entire argument with a single keystroke of punctuation, I will,
