Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Simple answers to simple questions.


Today’s edition courtesy of Five Feet of Have Bigotry, Will Travel™ who asks in appropriately spittle-flecked fashion: Apartheid: was it all bad?

Answer: Yes it was, you sniveling, racist fuckwit.

This has been another installment of "Simple answers to simple questions".

13 comments:

Red Tory said...

Can "Slavery: was it all bad?" be far behind?

E in MD said...

Shit like that is never all bad to the people who would be enforcing it on others. She assumes that because she's a Caucasian that she'd be the one on top and everyone else would be the one she would be stepping on.

It's easy to see how good things are on top while you're standing on everyone else's throat. I doubt she'd be quite so juiced about it if she were the one being pressed to the mat in her own country.

Ti-Guy said...

Was burning witches/Catholic heretics all that bad? Was branding trollops who are having sex outside the covenant of marriage with a scarlett letter all that bad?

¢rÄßG®äŠŠ said...

Shorter (if that's possible) Kathy Shaidle:

"Look at me!! Look at me!! I said something that will really make you mad!! I bet you ALL disagree with me!! Don't you ALL just think I'm SO offensive?? Well, don't you??"

Robin said...

An interesting point, ¢rÄßG®äŠŠ. And in fact, the eternal question.

Smacking down attention-hungry wingtards is a curious kind of assymetric warfare. In spite of the self-serving hyperbole of the GWOT's boosters, insurgents, terrorists, guerillas, the whole lot of them, have goals that can actually be understood with a little thought. They want, ultimately, what everyone else wants, for a given value.

But people like this, their objectives aren't - or aren't just, at any rate - victory in the equivalent of conventional warfare. They think they've scored points by the mere action of us stooping to to mention them, by widening their audience just that little bit. And you know what? In that regard, they're not wholly wrong.

Abyss, stares into you, all that. Eh?

Red Tory said...

It's a fairly tiresome routine, no?

Ti-Guy said...

Doubly tiresome because it's a debasement of the polemical style. She (and others) think they are breaking down the barriers of political correctness to force us to confront the fundamental issues of what leads to social/moral/economic breakdown. And those fundamental issues are...*ta da!*...skin tones!

Thousands and thousands of tax dollars to educate this person and this is what we get? An analysis that has been bankrupt since the dawn of recorded history?

It's sad to think that our society is still producing primitives like her, at this time, in the glorious "Age of Information."

¢rÄßG®äŠŠ said...

Agreed, ®obin.

Triply tiresome on account o' the pearls, non?

I'm glad she's a conservative. I wouldn't want her anywhere near my camp.

Red Tory said...

It's hard to see how that "politically incorrect" sort of act would play on the left (notwithstanding the show of the same name which really doesn't do all that much to push the envelope).

¢rÄßG®äŠŠ said...

Agreed, RT, but I'm assuming that if she abandoned that schtick, her misanthropic core would still shine through.

Frank Frink said...

I'm out of words, and you don't want to know what's on my mind.

jj said...

"I'm glad she's a conservative."

She's not a conservative. She's a "conservative".

¢rÄßG®äŠŠ said...

Yes. Good point, JJ.