Febrero 05, 2004
I don't understand the internet. Or strangers' indignance for that matter. How is it that despite fishing for incendiary spittlewhip assaults from New Age racists and Irish Nationalists, the only responses this thing gets are from king's illiterate asshole mom looking for pictures of Anna Nicole Smith or other hysterical parents who are worried that their children are going to do exhaustive googles for information about KFC and stumble on to bad language?
Posted by at Febrero 05, 2004 06:15 PM
It all makes me wish I didn't know how to work these things and was back to saying, "yeah I have the internet..." like I thought it was hidden in basement or something. What?
Hear, hear. Or is it here here? No, it's gotta be hear hear cause I'm hearing you. It's strange what incites people to leave a comment. Something has to stir some kind of emotional response, but that something is rarely tangible --unless it's racism and anti-racism, but mostly racism, which is the subject of the entry with the most comments on this blog.
You know, I'm still wondering whether that page should be deleted, as it's full of hate speech. One complaint to my hosting company about that and they could yank all of sankey.ca.
It is your operation after all, but I think that sets the precedent that not everything is okay to write about. I mean, we're not writing hate literature, and I don't think we are endorsing it. The entry was supposed to point out how absurd it is to participate in that tradition. At least it lets people blow off steam.
I think Den Beste put it best when he said: The philosophic justification for the "root causes" argument that we've heard so much about is the point: individual racists are not necessarily evil, even though racism is. Individual racists can be loving and compassionate chauvinistic contempt.
It reached its most pathological in Fisk's notorious attempt to explain away his being beaten by a crowd in Pakistan as ultimately being the result of western imperialism.
This attitude is racism of the characters. There are no villains in the movie, because it's not about that. By soft-pedaling the racism and yet never ducking it, the movie makes a more profound statement about it than some other films which pound it into the ground and paint all the characters as caricatures.
But it goes deeper than that: if we are responsible, then they will live good lives. They are less than we are. This is deeply loving and compassionate chauvinistic contempt.
Mark V. Shaney
"Non calor sed umor est qui nobis incommodat!"
Are you spam?
Seriously, can I get a second opinion on this one? I think that Mark V. Shaney is a spam robot. Look, he even spelt his name differently in two different places -- Shaney and then Chaney.
There's something weird going on here man. The robots are getting smarter. It almost makes sense what he's saying.
Unless he's linking to a web page, I don't see how it would be comment spam. That's the whole point of it.
That being said, although the comment seems moderately intelligent, I don't see why it was placed here.
Because it's a new kind of spam. The robots are trying to become friends with us. Then later they will spam us hard.
It's not gonna work Mark V. Shaney! We know what you're up to!
Mark Chaney=Dick Cheney? You see where this is going...
And then the dumber spam robots show up again.
I still don't trust Shaney/Cheney. Watched Dick Cheney on TV tonight. Sneering away. He sounds like he knows what he's talking about when he talks. He was desperately trying to get his grandkid into his arms, to fight off Edward's double-kids-in-the-arms attack, but he couldn't.
They showed John Kerry on the phone with Edwards afterwards. That guy has no emotion in his face whatsoever. The whole top half of his face is motionless. Botox maybe. I think they're giving him botox. I heard him on the radio the other day. He sounds really good.