Alex Jones is a notorious far right wing conspiracy kook, while Piers Morgan is an unethical scumbag. They collided on Morgan’s show, and at last we discover what happens when Yosemite Sam meets a jellyfish.
The sad thing is that a lot of people watched that and thought, “Yes, that angry guy who believes in a New World Order conspiracy is exactly right.”
The good thing is that a lot didn’t? Hopefully?
How many people, I wonder, actually take what they see and hear on such shows seriously?
Alex Jones has a HUGE following. His website Infowars (warning: do not go there if you are prone to cranial explosions or imbecile induced burning) is a go to for conspiracy nuts.
Oh, rats. The things I miss when I’m busy reading a good book…
My favorite exchange from that:
Morgan: Are you done?
Jones: Yes, I’m done. Continues paranoid ranting.
Reminds me of certain conversations with my father, except that at some point in that, I would have simply walked out and let him rant to an empty room.
PZ, just imagine them both in the arms of that giant squid and you’ll feel better (though I wonder if the squid would??)
Wow, that man was really scary… this should have been one of these interviews where security came in and dragged him out while giving him elephant tranquilizers.
As a resident of Austin, Texas, I apologize for our part in turning Alex Jones into a national figure (though I blame the Internet mostly).
“Castro took the guns”?
He means some Miguel Castro or so somwhere took some guns because Cubans are actually a highly trained miliary people who mostly know where the guns are and actually how to handle them.
Because somehow they have this little paranoid fear that some US-president or other could use an invasion as a campaign strategy, or that they could train and equip mercenaries to do so, not that there’s any precedence or such…
I don’t understand where Jones is getting his UK statistics from. He says that violent crime is increaing here but actually the reverse is true:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/14/crime-statistics-england-wales
Your first problem is thinking Alex Jones gives a shit about factuality.
I think this is the first time I have ever seen Alex Jones covered on FTB. Always found that curious. He says enough stupid shit you think he would be a regular enough subject on par with Pat Robertson or Bryan Fischer. Guess he is too easy of a target?
He’s a nut, but he’s not hateful (that I’m aware of, but my exposure to him is extremely limited). He will shed light on stories that need to get out there. I know he did some stuff on Bahrain. He’s just bonkers. He’s very passionate, but he’s gone a little too far down the rabbit hole. He doesn’t seem to have a good bullshit detector. I also suspect he doesn’t play well with others. This is the first time I’ve seen anything where he was with someone hostile to his views, and he handled it about as poorly as I would have expected.
Cure the flood of new posters who are upset at PZ calling Jones a crank. I’m sure they’re like some of our other pests, they incessantly scan the Internet looking for mentions of their pet cause and heroes.
Too bad Morgan and CNN decided to give Jones some credibility. After all if he’s on CNN he must have a legitimate point of view, right?
The real question here is which conspiracy theories Alex Jones doesn’t believe in? When you’re at that level, you don’t even notice that some conspiracies you believe in contradict each other… you can always find another “pathway” where it All Makes Sense™
Dude is unhinged…end of!
I hope his petition is unsuccessful…we do not really miss Piers in fact you can have him on free loan for the remainder of time…please don’t thank us, I think we should all stand shoulder to shoulder on that!
“..the conspiracies … contradict each other…” You’re wrong. That’s just what they want you to think.
Well I do remember he once claimed that energy drink companies were putting chemicals in their drinks to turn people gay as part of the New World Order’s plan to depopulate the earth. I felt stupid just typing that out.
exactly
Thread won.
Just so we’re clear, this deporting Piers Morgan thing? No dice, you’ve got him now, you keep him.
Yeah, most people’s exposure is. It’s so crazy, no one bothers.
During the swine flu epidemic, Alex knew that:
1. The vaccine would be mandatory.
2. It would kill billions of people.
3. As part of a UN depopulation program.
4. People who refuse the vaccine would be put in the FEMA concentration camps.
Of course, none of this happened. But they never care if their fantasies don’t come true. By the time they are falsified, they have already been through another 5 or 10.
Anyone think Alex Jones might himself be a candidate for anti-stress medication? Dude needs a hug.
Later in the interview he calls anti-depression meds, “mass murder suicide pills”.
So, good luck with that.
We could send Alex jones to a petting zoo? It’s like anti-depressants but fluffier ^.^
Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 23
Ahhh!…and therein lies the clue!
Maybe our hero, in the purgative sense, has…ahem a fractious medical history?
Sadly, as usual, I come away from the conversation thinking both sides are irrational. Jones is right that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to keep the citizenry armed to resist the government, but the notion that that is relevant today is laughable, and you’d think people supposedly so learned with regard to weapons would know this. In 1776, 200-300 citizens stood a decent chance of rebuffing 100 British regulares, when the weapon of the day was a frontloading musket, 4 shots a minute if you were proficient. Bujt today you’d need 1,000+ citizens armed with whatever guns they have around the house to take on 100 modern army regulars wearing kevlar and sporting modern automatic weapons, and that’s not even considering tanks and air power, or worse yet drones, which would put the numbers at such a bloodbath level its chiling. Jones is completely out of touch here.
But Morgan does no better. “How many gun murders has Britain had?” is the wrong question, and otherwise smart people wetting their pants over guns need to get this through their heads. #9 above gets it right – its crime period, deaths period, murders period, that matters. Obviously if you take away the guns, crime by gun is going to go down. But if crime by other means swells to fill the void, its a hollow victory, no? To make the case for a more rational gun policy you need to talk about how ALL crime/murders decline when certain weapons are taken out of the picture. Just talking about “gun deaths” is unpersuasive, because it makes you sound like you have a personal problem with guns, and its not entirely unwarranted.
Having been raised deep in the gun culture, but having no interest in using them personally and favoring a much more rational policy than we have here in the states, I continue to be amazed at how poorly those on my side politically make their case on this issue, and how often they come off sounding like a bunch of nervous ninnies who know nothing about the subject. If you think Morgan’s “how many gun deaths” question was a good one, I’m looking at you. You can do better, and we need you to.
Scienceavenger: is there any evidence to support the idea that crime by others means would swell to fill the void [if guns were illegal]? In the US, with gun violence out of control, stricter gun laws seek to reduce the number of deaths and injuries by firearm. There aren’t significant numbers (in comparison to guns) of people killing others with machetes, crossbows or katanas (not to mention, they take a certain proficiency to use accurately, and cannot do the same damage in the same amount of time as many of the firearms that are out there).
Tony:
I also think it interesting how often the argument about deaths by firearms becomes an argument about crime rate. Odd, that.
We know from the experience in Australia that when they changed their gun control laws, and took certain classes of weapons out of circulation that murders and other crimes committed using such weapons decreased, and that there was no increase the rates of murder and other crimes omitted not using such weapons.
You need to do better scienceavenger. Ignoring such evidence makes you look a fool.
Palin? Bachmann? Limbaugh? Most of the Faux News commentators?
hehehehe no I guess not.
In battles between Insufferably Smug and Raving Delusional, Insufferably Smug does usually fare better.
Matt @29: They had a buyback policy in Oz, right? That strikes me as a brilliant option in the US.
Yes they did, coupled with tough penalties for those who did not hand over their weapons.
scienceavenger
Are you really trying to equate these two arguments as presented as equally irrational?
My conspiracy theory is that Alex Jones is a tool of the NWO, intended to make people think conspiracy theories about the NWO are absurd. Let him try believing that.
I once had a friend who was very liberal and socially progressive, but was a big fan of Ron Paul. Our friendship ended when I sent him a link to the parody video of Alex Jones’ “Loose Change”, called “Unfastened Coins”. He hit the roof. I think he was also a Ron Paul supporter. When I think about him now I can’t help but get frustrated at how people can supposedly support equal rights for gays, women and non-white people, the right to choose, social welfare, free healthcare etc but also follow these maniacs who oppose pretty much all of that stuff.
A quick addendum to my last message: “was a big fan of Ron Paul” should read “was a big fan of Alex Jones”. I can’t edit it.
He uses the same tactic they all use: they know their argument can’t hold water, so they try to shut the debate down. I’m really surprised they gave him air time.
Speaking of Piers Morgan:
In 2000, he was the subject of an investigation after Suzy Jagger wrote a story in The Daily Telegraph revealing that he had bought £20,000 worth of shares in the computer company Viglen soon before the Mirror ‘s ‘City Slickers’ column tipped Viglen as a good buy.[14] Morgan was found by the Press Complaints Commission to have breached the Code of Conduct on financial journalism, but kept his job. The ‘City Slickers’ columnists, Anil Bhoyrul and James Hipwell, were both found to have committed further breaches of the Code, and were sacked before the inquiry. In 2004, further enquiry by the Department of Trade and Industry cleared Morgan from any charges.[15] On 7 December 2005 Bhoyrul and Hipwell were convicted of conspiracy to breach the Financial Services Act. During the trial it emerged that Morgan had bought £67,000 worth of Viglen shares, emptying his bank account and investing under his wife’s name too.[16]
AKAICT, no one here is defending Piers Morgan.
The alternative is that he truly believes this shit, truly believes that he, and only he (and his followers (as long as they stick to his orthodoxy)), has the correct answer to life, the universe and everything, that only he (and his followers) know what is actually going on and, because he is right and has The Truth, anyone disagreeing with him is, by definition, an enemy (or a minion or dupe of The Enemy) and can only spout lies. From his point of view, shouting down the liars for The Enemy is a public good that will convince more people to follow his Truth. Like arguing about the fact of evolution, and the theories surrounding that fact, with a Southern Baptist — it is viewed as a discussion between a follower of gods and a follower of Satan.
Don’t know how accurate this is but I have heard that in the olden days (think Bach and Mozart) the expensive seats were actually the worst ones in terms of music quality. They were the shittiest seats if you were going to actually enjoy the music…but they were the best seats to be SEEN enjoying the music.
That’s what “Socially liberal” libertarians are. They are about appearing to support what they know is ethical, while wanting to reap the benefits of unethical systems.
Or, he knows the nuttier he appears, the more he’ll sell.
The worst thing about “conspiracy theory” nutbags is that they can make it harder to search for facts and answers.
On very rare occasions, buffoons like Alex Jones stumble across facts and use them to back their delisions. When that happens, any serious questions involving those same facts will get lumped in with the “conspiracy theories” and not get answered. Or worse, those who ask serious questions get lumped in because the slime from Jones rubs off on them.
Come to think of it, it all happened during the Bush era right after 9/11 when some well-meaning liberals feared Bush just might be evil enough to have maybe allowed the attacks to happen. Complete bullshit, of course, but some – like Martin Sheen – fell for it. It was the strong desire to appear like a good, progressive liberal by saying, “Bush was evil, he did 9/11!”, despite the fact that being a liberal and being a progressive has nothing to do with being a conspiracy theorist.
Scienceavenger:
If that’s what Jones says, then I think he’s wrong. As far as I can tell, the 2nd was to assure that communities in the new country, particularly those in remote areas far from what little formal military the country had, could defend themselves from attacks. The US had essentially disbanded the Continental Army at the end of the Revolutionary War. For defense, many communities required men to purchase a musket and serve in the local militia, thus the wording of the amendment, to provide protection.
Their primary concern was Native Americans, particularly those who were allies of the British. The amendment was in part a reaction to the British attempt before the Revolution to restrict colonists taking guns into the trans-Allegheny region due to treaties they had with various groups there. In the South, there was concern about slave rebellions, as there had been several small ones up to that time.
But you are right that it’s ridiculous to think that an armed citizenry can resist the US government’s military power. A citizen army would have difficulty resisting big city SWAT teams. Not only do citizens not possess the type of weapons, training, and coordination that they have, they do not control the manufacturing of weapons and ammunition.
Conspiracy theories go way back.
Churchill has been accused of sitting on information about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, in order than the US would be drawn into the war against Germany. Complete bollocks, pretty much. The UK did have intelligence that the Japanese planned an attack on UK and Dutch possessions in Malaya and the DEI, and there was some indication that they planned an operation against US interests as well. However the US had access to the same intelligence (both because they could read Japanese codes and because the British passed on what they learnt from breaking the same codes).
Some of this bullshit got over here via David Icke. I know someone whose mother saw one of his videos and forbid her sons from taking the flu shot.
I don’t see the connection between that and what I said
@robro:
Exactly, thank you for saying that before I did.
The irony is that Morgan should be deported – to stand trial for his role in the Murdoch phone-hacking scandals.
It seems very likely that Morgan was at least aware of phone-hacking when editor of Daily Mirror, if not actually complicit in ordering such acts, but if he did not anything related to Murdoch. The Daily Mirror is a rival of the Murdoch owned Sun.
Well, thanks, PZ, for showing me a couple of shining lights I’ve been missing: Piers Morgan and Alex Jones (a twofer!). Not being previously aware of these two crackbrained nutcases, I now have someone else from whom to derive endless streams of (alternately) amusement and fun-house terror. (Pardon my abysmal ignorance; I’ve been doing mostly irrelevant stuff like making a living, having a relationship, stuff like that).
“The laugh-a-minute pro-celebrity puking bug known by the streetname “norovirus” continues to squirm its way through the population, effortlessly transforming ordinarily carefree human beings into spluttering, sulphurous geysers of molten waste. Everywhere the norovirus goes it leaves vast steaming lakes of freshly expelled vomit in its wake. It’s like Piers Morgan, but invisible. Which actually makes it slightly better than Piers Morgan.“
The eternal sigh of the opressed intellectuals of all stripes who actually have something reasonable to say amid the inane hysterical ramblings of the uneducated. Makes me want to go learn about chaos theory and take over the world.
NIck’s comment ponts to a huge blind spot of the conspiracy crowd. They never seem to consxider the idea that they themselves are being used by a conspiracy for nefaroius purposes. It’s something I pointed out to more than one of them back when i was a regular at alt.conspiracy in the late ’90s, but none o fhem seemed to seroiusly consider the idea. The 911 “Truth” movement strikes me as a movement that could easily be imagined to be the product of manipulation, intended to disredit opposition to Buish’s plans for Iraq and elsewhere. Not that I personally believe that, but it’s a more credible and doable conspiracy theory than robot airplanes and nanothermiet smuggled into the WTC.
(I’d love to hear a Truther try to explain to me why, after supposedly convincing most of us that Osama did 911, Bush and his cronies couldn’t be bothered to have fake WMDs cooked up to jusfify the Iraq invasion.)
May I just join my fellow Brits in enthusiastically urging that Piers Morgan should on no account be deported. He’s your problem now, suckers.
When climate deniers start claiming that AGW is a hoax made up by far leftists to bring about world government and how people who accept the science are gullible sheeple, I am always impressed how they never seem to imagine that maybe fossil fuel companies might have a vested interest in denying AGW and just taking their word on it uncritically might not make them the rebellious nonconformist they think they are.
w00dview,
Samething with alt med quacks, they rail against the Big Pharma conspiracy, but it never occurs to them that alt med practitioners and woo peddlers are just as likely to be interesting in seperating them from their hard earned $ as the pharmaceuitcal companies are, if not more.
Indeed, it is interesting that no matter the flavour of science denial, the types of arguments used to support them are very similar (i.e. conspiracies, cherry picking, logical fallacies, etc).
@Matt Penfold (#53):
I stand corrected. Thank you.
So. That’s this Alex Jones I keep hearing about.
He’s loud, shouty, and doesn’t let anyone get a word in edgewise. I find him extremely distasteful… wait. Is “distasteful” a word? Anyway, DO NOT WANT!
I don’t know how Piers made it through that interview without trying to strangle the loud shouty man — gods know it wasn’t more than three minutes in when I started getting stabby. (I changed the channel, no need to add extra stress to my life.)
THIS. There are plenty of people that care more about their tax rate than they do social justice.
bullshit.
I wish I could sit as a smugly superior Canadian, but I’ve seen an Infowars billboard in my province. I visited the site after seeing one of them for the first time, and thought for a moment that it was supposed to be some kind of “alternate reality” site that used stories really happening but twisted into a dystopian vision of the world. That impression didn’t last that long after witnessing the first screaming rant, when it became obvious that Alex Jones was serious.
Oh an Alex Jones thread. Former fan here.
I see some people saying “he’s not hateful.”
Nope, Jones is a racist. Very overt about it.
For “fun”, check out his reaction to Machete:
http://google.com/search?q=alex+jones+machete
Stop trying to blame being a bad person on mental illness.
Also, fuck you.
Dude is making a lot of money.
Probably fuck you too.
Fuck you.
It’s his shtick. It’s stuff like this why Richard Linklater cast him in Waking Life.
And fuck you.
He’s just an evil racist with a profitable enterprise. Fuck you.
Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, shithead.
Zero evidence that he’s experiencing any delusions. Fuck you.
Zero evidence of mania. Fuck you.
Fuck you too.
Alex Jones … oh wait, this guy:
e
[I’m sorry, this laptop is utterly disfunctional.]
Alex Jones … oh wait, this guy:
Jon Ronson – Them: Adventures with Extremists
… abuse their harem ..
Worked in a small room with my udeeply deluded (fuck you back, strange gods) coworker who plays Genesis Communications Network all day. Listened to hours on end of Jones’ schtick until I got a good loud MP3 player and on random days where it didn’t work. Guy’s got pipes, I’ll give him that. Given how much he shrieks over a four-hour show, I can only imagine the volume he can cram into a ten-minute interview.
@12, jeffsutter
Fair enough and good for you, but no. He’ll dabble in any kind of racist dog whistle you can feed his audience, but he started his career in a neo-Nazi movement and is still mainly and routinely based in anti-Semitism. Who likes “international bankers”, amirite, but if he says those words they’ll always have been preceded by “Zionist” and followed by at least two “schild”s or “berg”s. He has David Irving, the primary English-language Holocaust denier, on every month or two…and then feds for a couple days on reactions to that. One little maneuver I recall verbatim: “I am notanti-Jew. I am Jewish, okay? My wife’s grandfather was Jewish, and she’s a good Christian!”
@68, strange gods
He makes his living strenuously claiming to experience delusions, follow brooding/screaming minute-to-minute mood swings and be unable to think logically for three sentences in a row. It’s entirely fair rhetoric to take him at his word. Get some Prep H for that butthurt.
http://buffalobeast.com/113/50_most_loathsome_2006.htm
No, he does not. From James Morrison’s guide to the DSM-IV, here are the sort of ideas classified as delusions:
«Grandeur. Patients believe they are persons of exalted station, such as God or a movie star.
Guilt. Patients feel they have committed an unpardonable sin or grave error.
Ill Health. Patients believe they have a terrible disease.
Jealousy. Patients are convinced that their spouses or partners have been unfaithful.
Passivity. Patients believe they are being controlled or manipulated by some outside influence such as radio waves.
Persecution. Patients feel they are being interfered with.
Poverty. Patients feel they are facing destitution, contrary to such evidence as a job and ample money in the bank.
Reference. Patients feel they are being talked about, perhaps in the press or on television.
Thought Control. Patients believe ideas are being put into their minds by others. »
Alex Jones reports nothing of the sort. He claims to believe things which lots of other people told him — his alleged beliefs are thus explained by his culture, and therefore are not delusions.
That’s his shtick. Lewis Black does it too. Lots of entertainers do this. It’s a common shtick.
*shrug* I don’t think that’s true, but if it were true, it just means he’s bad at logic.
“Fair rhetoric” is not a skeptical search for what is actually true.
It isn’t skeptical to discount the money he makes from his shtick.
In any case, even if you are stupid enough to think that he is mentally ill, you should be bothered by the people here saying he should be forceably drugged against his will. He isn’t a direct danger to anyone, and his indirect harms — via racism, et cetera — are protected by the First Amendment, and even in countries without free speech being a racist isn’t something that can be fixed by violating someone’s bodily autonomy and drugging them.
Please avoid homophobic slurs here.
strange gods before me ॐ wrote:
I thought the fact he started his rant with “these foreigners” should’ve made it obvious. People who aren’t hateful rarely have to rant about “these foreigners”.
Since when is “butthurt” an anti-gay slur? It’s describing a state of being overly upset about, or sulking over, some petty or imagined slight.
Likewise “bitchy”.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/12/thats-not-a-response-michael-its-a-denial/comment-page-1/#comment-511520
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/12/thats-not-a-response-michael-its-a-denial/comment-page-1/#comment-511549
Yeah, that’s not an explanation. SGBM, why is “butthurt” an anti-gay slur?
I read the links. All I see is a spurious claim that, because some people might think it has a sexual connotation, it’s automatically a reference to buttsex, and is therefore a “slur”, even though the actual meaning and use has nothing to do with any of that.
I always assumed it meant from being spanked, however SG as made reasonable explanations in the past why it is homophobic.
I bet you can figure it out.
So, it really is a case of someone deciding “this has sexual overtones, therefore, SLUR!”
I find the “explanations” offered to be thin and frivolous, without actually delving in to the origin of the term; in short, SGBM has said nothing more than “it’s a gay slur because I say so.” Xe has offered no evidence to the term’s origins or meaning, and refuses to consider that — even if the term did originally come about as a slur — the meaning has changed enough to no longer be a slur.
I will NOT stop using “butthurt” unless and until it is conclusively proven to be a slur.
How very brave. Someone points out that a term has been used as a homophobic slur and therefor hurtful and you then decide it would be better that you are not inconvenienced by not being able use this one term when there are so few other words in the English or other languages you could choose. Instead you’ll cling incredulously to it and continue to risk being hurtful until it is proven conclusively to your satisfaction that it is in fact a slur.
Fantastic.
Arguments are presented in the thread linked. More are presented in this one:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/05/29/simple-guidelines/comment-page-1/#comment-350163
I have now linked to three gay men explaining why they are opposed to it, in threads which contain more complete discussion of it. That should mean something to you.
That is an overt lie, considering this link was already provided. I’ve considered it. Since it continues in fact to be used as an anti-gay slur, I caution people not to use it in hopes of polysemy.
If you don’t care that arguments have been provided, and you don’t care that these arguments are provided by gay men, I will tell you what we usually tell stupid assholes in cases like this:
Say what you want. You will be considered homophobic for it. That is the logical outcome of such behavior.
If I see three women saying “that term is sexist”, I might say “I’m still having trouble understanding why you think that, could you elaborate?”
I sure as fuck would not respond “I’m still having trouble understanding why you think that, so I’m going to keep on saying it!”
Wow, you’re an asshole
Uh, right, I’m an “asshole” for asking for quantifiable evidence that a word is a slur. I see the term used constantly, and it has never had the slightest connotation of “hurr durr gays are inferior” that some here are claiming. If you want to convince me, show me.
SHOW ME EVEN ONE PERSON USING “BUTTHURT” AS A SLUR AND I WILL STOP USING IT.
No, that’s not why you’re an asshole. It was clearly explained in 83 and 84 how you’re being an asshole.
Your 75, 77 and 78 do not yet make you an asshole. You become an asshole at they end of 80.
I don’t much care about convincing you. I just want you to stop using it and insisting there’s nothing wrong with it. If you do that much, without being convinced, I would be satisfied.
This is already done, in the thread linked at 82:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/05/29/simple-guidelines/comment-page-1/#comment-350163
Try skimming the thread. Feel free to use Ctrl-F for the term in question.
And 81 and 82.
WMDKitty. It honestly doesn’t matter.
The community has decided that butthurt is a slur, so don’t use the word here. If the Horde decided that pizza were a slur, you just use the phrase “savory open faced pie” and move on with your life.
Yes, in this context, the word was all-but defined as meaning “suffering from hemorrhoids”, but *shrug*, what can you do.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/12/thats-not-a-response-michael-its-a-denial/comment-page-1/#comment-511549
I have yet to see “butthurt” used in any context where it could be construed as a slur. (And yes, I have read the threads I’ve been directed to — it’s not used as a slur there, either.)
Butt in the interest of hearing less whinging, I’ll try to remember not to use that particular phrase.
Bullshit. Abject bullshit.
Gay men give examples and explain why they object, you handwave away all arguments and examples and requests for interpersonal consideration as “whinging”.
Attempting to move this tangent to the open thread.
SGBM, I already agreed not to use it — is that not enough for you?
Or are you going to whine and pout because I don’t agree with you? (It’s really unbecoming.)
Lying shithead, I said “I don’t much care about convincing you. I just want you to stop using it and insisting there’s nothing wrong with it. If you do that much, without being convinced, I would be satisfied.”
What I’m objecting to is your implicit homophobia, in handwaving away all arguments and examples and requests for interpersonal consideration as “whinging”.
Now get the fuck out of here.
hypocee:
We don’t indulge in homophobic insults here. The same goes for gendered, racist and ableist insults or slurs. I’m sure you can manage to be creative enough without going that route.
WMDkitty:
This isn’t true, if you’ve followed the links and read. Please consider that this may be an area where you have blinders on. People can become very accustomed to seeing a word as having only one meaning, so they still gather that meaning despite context.
I have seen butthurt used in a variety of ways, including homophobically. You may not have noticed that around the time people started using “that’s so gay” and the like as a put down, butthurt had a brand new spin placed on it. Also, rather than simply digging your heels in, take a moment to consider that simply because you haven’t seen butthurt used specifically in a homophobic way (or hadn’t noticed), doesn’t mean it isn’t used that way.
I’ll add that as hypocee’s comment referenced Prep H, you really can’t infer a spanking or something of that nature.
SGBM — If you bothered to actually READ, you’d see that I’m not lying. But I guess you’re too caught up in your tantrum to actually do something so adult as reading…
Thank you for the amusing display stupidity, in implying that your comment from 2:38 am should affect my comment from 1:51 am,
and the irony of you complaining about a “tantrum” after you went all caps,
but you lied when you said “I have read the threads I’ve been directed to — it’s not used as a slur there, either.” You either lied about reading the threads at all, or you lied about the content that you found there — for instance “Look at that stupid faggot…what a butthurt”, unambiguous use of the term as a homophobic slur.
Calm. The fuck. Down.
You’re getting your way.
I asked a reasonable question regarding the nature of “butthurt”; “How is this an anti-gay slur?”
Had you simply explained, “butthurt is homophobic because [well-thought-out reasons backed with evidence]”, we would not have had a problem here, and I would have gone on my happy way, going, “ah, now I know.” And you know what? That’s all I fucking wanted! A quick explanation of why. I wasn’t expecting the Spa– *cough* I wasn’t expecting to be attacked and called names for it, and I certainly wasn’t looking for a fight.
Go on, look back over this discussion. You’ll see quite clearly that you, SGBM, were the one who came out swinging and raging and being an utter ass. You continued this behavior and called me a liar — a demonstrably untrue charge. Having read the “arguments” you linked to, I can only say that any homophobia there is, at most, inferred in the mind of the listener. It is not, as you claim, “obvious”. What you did provide as evidence (Urban Dictionary) reads like the bathroom-wall scribbles in a junior-high locker room, and for this reason, cannot be taken seriously.
Now, I’m done with this conversation. I expect you to retract your statements calling me a liar, and to apologize for flipping the fuck out on me for asking one, simple, question that I did not know the answer to.
You’re quite the entitled piece of shit, aren’t you?
Not while you’re continuing to engage in implicit homophobia by dismissing all three citations of gay men explaining objections to the term as simply “whining”.
And I gave you the links.
But you weren’t attacked and called names for it. Again,
“No, that’s not why you’re an asshole. It was clearly explained in 83 and 84 how you’re being an asshole.” “And 81 and 82.” “Your 75, 77 and 78 do not yet make you an asshole. You become an asshole at they end of 80. ”
I see that your assholery was pointed out by Ing and Rev. BigDumbChimp before I got mean, so I see that your interpretation is not shared by anyone but yourself.
Again,
“No, that’s not why you’re an asshole. It was clearly explained in 83 and 84 how you’re being an asshole.” “And 81 and 82.” “Your 75, 77 and 78 do not yet make you an asshole. You become an asshole at they end of 80. ”
And that’s when I treated you like an asshole.
You are a liar. I have demonstrated it to be true. You do not even dispute the substance of my argument, which is:
«but you lied when you said “I have read the threads I’ve been directed to — it’s not used as a slur there, either.” You either lied about reading the threads at all, or you lied about the content that you found there — for instance “Look at that stupid faggot…what a butthurt”, unambiguous use of the term as a homophobic slur.»
The first time I said you were lying, it was because you claimed that I was “whin[ing] and pout[ing] because [you] don’t agree with [me].” That was immediately after I explained clearly what you were bullshitting about and what I objected to, which was not simple disagreement. (You sound like a Thunderfoot devotee with your refrain of “disagreement! it’s only disagreement!”)
You are doing the equivalent of telling a woman that she doesn’t know what sexism is, and has always in every case mistaken the use of “bitch” for sexism when it never was.
But if you won’t listen to a gay man, maybe you’ll listen to a straight man. Here’s one relating how the term was used when he it was current for him. Now do you still want to insinuate that I’ve never heard the same thing?
Interestingly, I have not used the term “obvious”. I have in fact linked to my acknowledgement of what I believe to be genuine polysemy, and my caution against relying on such.
What, you think there’s no homophobia in junior-high locker rooms?
You think something that reminds you of junior-high locker rooms therefore can’t be homophobia?
What the fuck is your point even supposed to be? It’s a social site; definitions are voted up or down. It is currently the best quantified resource on usage in the wild. The skeptical thing is not to poo-poo the data; if you have better data then just offer it. Otherwise this is what we’ve got, and data is better than any one person’s gut feelings.
You want more examples of it in the wild? It’s simple, WMDKitty, do some of your own fucking homework and google butthurt+faggot+fucked.
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Is_CreateDebate_full_of_passive_aggressive_butthurt_faggot_hipsters
No reason I should have to be subjected to more homophobia just so you can be enlightened at my hand.
I’ve explained what you’re lying about, so I won’t be retracting that.
This would be one of the things you’re lying about. I didn’t get upset with you for asking.
Again,
“No, that’s not why you’re an asshole. It was clearly explained in 83 and 84 how you’re being an asshole.” “And 81 and 82.” “Your 75, 77 and 78 do not yet make you an asshole. You become an asshole at they end of 80. ”
Go fuck yourself, asshole.
I have agreed not to use the word “butthurt”.
I do not understand, from reading the links, exactly why you think it’s a slur.
Seeing that you and several others do consider it a slur, I would like to know, in your own words, why you feel this way. Please, just a few concise sentences, no links, no name calling, just a simple explanation of your reasoning.
As for me acting like an asshole — yeah. I’ll cop to that. I’m kind of an asshole sometimes. But that doesn’t excuse the immediate piling on for asking a question and expecting — oh, the horrors! — a coherent answer. It also does NOT excuse your repeated lies about me. I did not lie. I gave you my observations, and my observations obviously don’t match up with yours — for what reason, I don’t know. It’s possible that I’m looking right at it and not seeing it. (Like one of those stupid “Magic Eye” things.) This may be a case of privilege-blindness, in which case a proper explanation would help to educate me. (And that’s kinda what I’m doing, here; saying “Educate me!”)
I’m telling you right now to stop calling me a liar. I did read your links, and observed nothing more than incidental “read this the wrong way and it’s kinda homophic” homophobia. Your opinion has been noted, and your opinion is in dispute. This is not “lying”.
As for calling the homophobia “juvenile”… ummm, DUH! Because it fucking is! I never said or implied that made it “less homophobic” or “not as bad”. Being juvenile and rather childish doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be corrected, or that it’s acceptable, or that you should “get over it”. It just means it’s fucking juvenile, like calling someone a “retard”!
I already apologized (or tried to) in the Lounge, I’d really like to be done with this conversation, I’m not in the mood for an argument right now, and I don’t have the energy for a debate.
Can we please either just drop it (with the explicit agreement of all parties that “butthurt” is off-limits), or come back to it with fresh heads after a good sleep?
I’m well past the point of giving a fuck.
You don’t get to JAQ this of me anymore. Go fuck yourself, shithead.
Liar liar liar! Nobody piled on you for asking a question. Again,
“No, that’s not why you’re an asshole. It was clearly explained in 83 and 84 how you’re being an asshole.” “And 81 and 82.” “Your 75, 77 and 78 do not yet make you an asshole. You become an asshole at they end of 80. ”
Possibly because you’re a liar who is pretending that “Look at that stupid faggot…what a butthurt” is not a slur.
I don’t give a fuck. You squandered your opportunity. I was patient while you weren’t being a shit. I am not going to be nice to you about it now, though. I have explained this ad nauseum, and I am not going to put up with your bullshit.
Again, I do not give a fuck about convincing you. I just want you to stop using it and insisting there’s nothing wrong with it. If you do that much, without being convinced, I would be satisfied.
But you are lying, so I won’t.
«you lied when you said “I have read the threads I’ve been directed to — it’s not used as a slur there, either.” You either lied about reading the threads at all, or you lied about the content that you found there — for instance “Look at that stupid faggot…what a butthurt”, unambiguous use of the term as a homophobic slur.»
So the fuck what? What the fuck is your stupid fucking point already?
Liar! You said the example therefore couldn’t be taken seriously as an example of a homophobic slur.
Then you shouldn’t have said it therefore couldn’t be taken seriously as an example of a homophobic slur.
And when I saw that, after posting my last response here, I was ready to let it go. You can consider your apology not accepted now, since you’re making excuses again.
Then drop it. I am never going to let you get in a last word that consists of anything but an unambiguous apology.
The way this works is you shut the fuck up and stop digging.
You’re throwing another tantrum and continuing your FALSE assertions.
I asked for an explanation. You gave me attitude and then got upset when I responded in kind. You don’t get to tell me to sit down and shut up, especially when you’re behaving like a fucking CHILD.
I offered to shut up and let you have your way (see previous post — especially the part you conveniently omitted), but you continued with your lies and your twisting of words and your tantrums.
I no longer care about the original issue, and I couldn’t give half a fuck whether or not you’re offended. Your attitude is disgusting, your whining is boring, and your childish tantrum would embarrass a two-year-old.
Stop calling me a liar, and I will drop this.
Persist, and I will take it to PZ.
Jesus, I mean, it’s not like I didn’t already give you a link to someone using it as clear as day: “Is CreateDebate full of passive-aggressive butthurt faggot hipsters? […] this site is full of pussy ass faggots crying like little bitches to their mommy when their assholes get stretched out“.
The meaning not clear enough for you? You don’t see what I’m talking about? Fuck you. I don’t believe you. You’re lying.
But good heavens, you said all you wanted was an example of someone using it as a slur. If you need another example, here’s yet another gay man explicitly saying it’s an obviously homophobic expression. After which he immediately turns around and uses it, to demonstrate how he’s better than weak faggots like me (later calls me a nancy, to, uh, prove his point).
Tone trolling. I’ve been perfectly clear. It doesn’t matter that I’m also calling you a shithead.
Tone trolling, but also a lie. Quote me. I was civil to you until you dismissed the feelings of gay men. You could have disagreed about the substance without being an asshole about it.
Again: «Not while you’re continuing to engage in implicit homophobia by dismissing all three citations of gay men explaining objections to the term as simply “whining”.»
“My way” does not include your continued engagement in implicit homophobia, nor your distortions of the discussion.
Whatever you think is important, quote it. I didn’t omit anything relevant, and I am certainly not obligated to respond to every single one of your stupid fucking words.
You never did. If you did, you wouldn’t have gone asshole in comment 80, dismissing the feelings of gay men as linked for you.
Then the sooner you shut the fuck up, the better for everyone.
Again the dismissal of clearly stated arguments from gay men as mere “whining”. This is homophobic of you. You should stop it.
I’m not simply “calling” you a liar; I have multiple times explained what you’re lying about.
You were told to take it to Thunderdome. You did for one comment and then came right back here. That’s pretty blatant trolling.
@72 Hpyocee — I see. When I hear international banker stuff, I don’t recognize it as anti-Semitic as bankers are shady and corrupt like hell. I don’t believe bankers are trying to run the world, just that they are trying to corrupt the economic policies of countries for their own gain (which, they are in fact doing). I can enjoy some crazy conspiracy theories involving government, but I can’t stand for racism or homophobia.
If someone came to me and told me “tarbaby” was a racist slur and please stop using it my reaction would be “Whoops, maybe I’m being kind of insensitive and don’t even know it. In order to stop offending this person I’m going to refrain until I learn more.”
Not
“Well fuck that, I like saying coon and will continue to do so because I understand it to mean “x”. How I chose to use the word is my business until someone can prove to me it is a slur. And i’m going to continue using in the presence of people who have told me it is a slur.”
And I also wouldn’t play the “I offered to shut up and let you have your way, “. That shows a complete lack of understanding of the request being made. It’s not about anyone getting their way it’s about understanding the point being made. This is akin to to saying “Fine!” Crossing your arms and sitting in the corner pouting while claiming the person making the request is “whigning”. That’s a pretty deep dark hole you’re peering into if when people bring up to you that you could be using a slur and you call it whigning.
Not sure why you had this reaction to what was a fairly benign request from SGBM.
shrug
NWO conspiracy theories are firmly rooted in Anti-Semitism. “International bankers” is, and always was, a code word for “Jews”.
Oh, jesus christ, I’VE AGREED TO STOP USING IT.
And stop fucking calling me names, you juvenile jackass. I have not “dismissed”, “handwaved”, or otherwise rejected any actual evidence — I simply refuse to listen to whiny mcwhinerson over there rabbit on and on and on about something I’ve already fucking agreed to abide by.
Now can we please fucking LEAVE IT ALONE?
They’re certainly a warning sign for anti-Semitism. I do think that since 1990, when George H. W. Bush used the term, it has been somewhat more plausible for exceptionally non-racist individuals to believe their own non-racist NWO conspiracy theories. Probably this is rare since a baseline of anti-Semitic beliefs is quite common in society.
Indeed. People talk about how bankers or the banking industry or banking corporations are corrupt evil fucks, and they manage to do it without that adjective “international” — it is weird to emphasize the “international” thing about bankers if the speaker is not emphasizing Jewish people’s alleged disloyalty to the nations of which they are citizens.
I would not think the same thing of the term “multinational banking corporation”. Not that it couldn’t be used as a code word, but it seems less likely to be, since a corporation is impersonal. (But I might wonder if there’s no clear reason why banking corporations, rather than corporations generally, are under discussion.) More importantly, it just doesn’t seem to have gotten into circulation as such a code word. (I could be wrong; I’m saying I just haven’t seen it.)
Anyway, a cursory look suggests Jones probably does use the IB phrase: infowars.com/geithners-appointment-book-taking-orders-from-the-international-bankers/
That’s written by Kurt Nimmo for Jones’s site, but Jones certainly isn’t discouraging him.
WMDKitty,
Go fuck yourself, shithead.
Not true. But here, someone else explains it for you. And another.
It is implicitly homophobic for you to handwave away all arguments and examples and requests for interpersonal consideration from gay men as “whining”. Stop doing that.
The way this works is you shut the fuck up and stop digging.
The New World Order conspiracy kooks are not limited to the US, unfortunately. Just the other day I heard a discussion between an Irish woman and an Englishman. The English guy brought up Northern Ireland and said that the biggest reason he didn’t want to see Northern Ireland becoming part of the Republic of Ireland was that Ireland had ceded its national sovereignty to Brussels. He then proceeded to launch into some kind of tirade about 1000 convicted murderers and rapists that are being allowed to roam the English countryside raping and pillaging because the EU won’t let the UK deport them.
No, douchenozzle, the way this works is you stop attacking me, because it’s uncalled for.
I have conceded to your wishes and will stop using the term that you object to. (Psst. That was the part, a few posts up, where you were supposed to graciously accept victory, and we both could have walked away happy.)
As for my “handwaving” and “dismissal” — that has nothing to do with you, Snowflake, or your orientation, and everything to do with you shrieking like a maniacal banshee and refusing to listen to reason. I don’t tolerate it from toddlers, I won’t tolerate it from you. You are not a Special Snowflake, and you do not get to invent motivations for other people’s actions. It’s dishonest, it’s manipulative, and it’s really fucking irritating.
Now, LEAVE ME. THE FUCK. ALONE. and DROP. THE FUCKING. ISSUE.
(PS: Try discussing this calmly, it makes people want to listen.)
No.
You do not get to dictate tone. You do not get to go unchallenged.
PS. Can this derail go towards the Thunderdome?
teehee
WMDK, this seems like a chance to grow and learn. Instead you’re doubling down on the
butthwoe-is-me JAQ thing.I laughed when you asked for “quantifiable evidence” for what a term means (I was then surprised when SG actually came up with some!). It’s pretty simple. No matter what you (or I) think about the etymology and meaning of ‘butthurt”, the fact is clear that some people use it as a homophobic insult, and many more interpret it that way. Just because you or I think the referent is ‘spanking’ doesn’t change the fact that many others don’t. It is a slur to a lot of people, and that’s not wrong because that’s how language works; your opinion on the matter (and mine) is irrelevant. Keep using the term to mean what you think it ought to mean, but realize that you will appear to be an oblivious homophobe if you do, and you’ll likely be treated accordingly.
grow.
learn.
or shut the fuck up.
WMDKitty, you do not get to dictate tone.
It is called for. You are still engaging in implicit homophobia by handwaving away all arguments and examples and requests for interpersonal consideration from gay men as “whining”. Stop doing that.
Not while you’re continuing to engage in implicit homophobia by dismissing all citations of gay men explaining objections to the term as simply “whining”. It is clearly my wish for you to stop doing that.
You don’t get to be treated graciously when you dismiss all citations of gay men explaining objections to the term as simply “whining”. That is implicitly homophobic behavior. I don’t have to put up with it, and so I won’t.
If you had actually conceded graciously, without homophobically dismissing gay men’s feelings, then you might have seen a gracious acceptance of your concession.
I don’t give a shit about your intentions. Because the people whose feelings about their own oppression you are handwaving away as “whining” happen to be gay men, your action is implicitly homophobic. If we were women, your action would be implicitly sexist. And so on.
You’re being homophobic again.
I never said anything about your motivation. It is your actions which are implicitly homophobic.
The way this works is you shut the fuck up and stop digging.
Ironic right after you go all caps again. You need to calm down, WMDKitty.
PS: get the fuck out of this thread. And go read the comments from others about you in Thunderdome. Nobody but you* thinks you’re correct or behaving decently.
*in all honesty, you probably don’t think you’re right or decent either.
Hey. I was an asshole about it. I’m sorry.